1971-09-17

PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF PRESIDENT OF EUROPEAN COMMUNITY COMMISSION

Mr. Speaker:: I have the pleasure of announcing the presence in the Speaker's gallery of a very distinguished visitor, His Excellency Signor Franco Maria Malfatti, President of the European Community Commission, On behalf of hon. members I heartily welcome President Malfatti and express the wish, on behalf of each and everyone of my colleagues in the House, that his visit and that of his colleagues to our capital may be both fruitful and pleasant.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I said in the House on Thursday, September 9, that I would make a statement concerning the use of informants by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, with particular reference to the serious allegations made by Mr. Robert W. Eadie, Jr. formerly of Cornwall, Ontario, on a television broadcast on September 8.
I have now received a report from the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and wish to inform the House in the first instance, of the policy in effect in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police regarding the use of juvenile informants and then to speak of the allegations made by Mr. Eadie Jr.
I am informed by the Commissioner of the RCMP that for decades it has been the general policy of the Force that police business involving juveniles should be conducted with great care and with the full knowledge and consent of the parents or guardian. Police officers are instructed that the approaches to juveniles must be direct and honest; a show of force or harshness or anything that suggests threats must be avoided. If it is necessary to interrogate juveniles, every effort is made for at least one parent or the school principal or teacher to be present.
It has been general practice within the RCMP that when a juvenile volunteers information, the police investigator obtains as much information as possible during the initial contact. If the same juvenile returns with information a second or third time, then the investigator notifies the
informant's parents or guardian and obtains their consent before making further use of the juvenile as an informant.
It has not been general practice for juvenile informants to be paid for information given at the first contact though, if this information has led to an arrest or a seizure of drugs for example, then casual payments have been made after the first contact. Juvenile informants have been paid on a casual basis for information provided, which has been verified and has produced effective results. But I would like to make it clear that juvenile informants have not been carried on a regular payroll, either weekly, monthly or annually.
I am informed by the Commissioner of the RCMP that as of August 24, 1971, only six juvenile informants reporting to the RCMP were receiving payments for information on a casual basis. On August 12, 1971, a formal instruction was issued by the RCMP headquarters under the title Interim Instruction 134. This instruction was amended shortly thereafter and the amendment was distributed to all divisions on August 24, 1971. With regard to juvenile informants, the amended instruction 134 reads as follows:
"When a juvenile volunteers information, the investigator should accept whatever information is available during the initial contact. If the services of the juvenile are to be used any time after the initial contact, the investigator must first obtain the consent of the juvenile's parents or guardian.
A juvenile shall not be: (a) assigned an informant's number or (b) paid money under any circumstances.
Juveniles shall not be used to purchase drugs."
I am sure hon. members will agree that the practice of paying juveniles for information given by them to the police is repugnant. Furthermore, this practice did not add appreciably to the efficiency of police operations. Accordingly the instruction was amended on August 24 to ensure that juveniles who provide the RCMP with useful information will no longer be paid money under any circumstances.
I wish now to deal with allegations that I have been misled by the RCMP and that I misled the public when I stated on a television program in August that the RCMP "would not have a young person as informant on any payroll".
A young person within this context is a juvenile as defined under the Juvenile Delinquency Act. As hon. members know, provincial Attorneys General are primarily responsible for enforcing the Criminal Code. For this reason the definition of the age of a juvenile pursuant to the Juvenile Delinquents Act is that which applies in so far as RCMP operations are concerned. In New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan and Alberts-Alberta for boys only-a juvenile is one who is under the age of 16. In
RCMP Informants

September 17, 1971
Newfoundland and British Columbia a juvenile is under the age of 17, and in Manitoba, Quebec and Alberta- Alberta for girls only-a juvenile is under the age of 18.
Hon. members also know that the Young Offenders Bill, which is now in a committee of this House, enables the provinces to establish the juvenile age either at under 17 or under 18.
I have already explained that prior to August 24, 1971, it was general practice within RCMP operations for juveniles to be paid on a casual basis but juveniles were not carried on a payroll. Effective August 24, 1971, even this practice of paying juveniles for information has ceased entirely.
I will now reply to the serious allegations made by Mr. Robert W. Eadie, Jr., formerly of Cornwall, Ontario, on a television broadcast on September 8, 1971. I find it distasteful to have to do so, and I am sure members of the House and the Canadian public will also find it distasteful. On the other hand, since serious accusations have been made which hurt the reputation of some members of the RCMP and the reputation of the force itself, I consider that I have no choice and that it is my duty to reply to these accusations.
May I make it clear to hon. members that I have decided to reveal all the facts as shown in police records which deal with the accusations of Mr. Eadie, Jr. Certain details such as the exact dates of payments to Mr. Eadie, the amount of each payment and the various criminal cases involved will not be revealed so as not to jeopardize his position. It is of course, not the normal practice to reveal such information. RCMP policy is to protect sources of information, the individuals involved and their families. It is because Mr. Eadie, Jr. himself decided to reveal publicly the alleged circumstances of his becoming a police informant and to make serious accusations about the conduct of RCMP officers that I have decided with great regret to reply to his accusations in detail.
Mr. Robert Eadis, Jr. was born on August 13, 1950. He served a short sentence at Gqelph reformatory, as he stated publicly, and was released on parole on September 21, 1968. Mr. Eadie's parole expired on February 24, 1969. On March 17, 1969 he was convicted of theft and sentenced to a $50 fine or 15 days in jail. He paid the $50 fine. After March 17, 1969 there were no charges pending against him.
In a television broadcast Mr. Eadie made five significant allegations. First allegation: Mr. Eadie, Jr. said:
One night I got picked up by the city police regarding intoxication and they called the RCMP because they were aware I knew people on the drug scene and they forced me by threatening that they would send me back to prison if I did not give them information regarding drugs.
Mr. Eadie also said:
They took me to the station and put me in a cell and then they got in touch with the RCMP as they knew that the RCMP wanted someone like me to get hold of.
The facts are that there is no record of Robert W. Eadie, Jr. ever having been arrested by the Cornwall city police or having been put in their cells as alleged; that in April, 1969, the Cornwall city police received a telephone call from Mr. Eadie, Jr. during which he stated that he had information to provide on drug use in Cornwall; that Mr. 
Eadie Jr. was advised that someone would contact him. The Cornwall city police then informed the RCMP detachment commander at Long Sault and suggested that he should get in touch with Mr. Eadie, Jr.; that, on or about April 20, 1969, the RCMP detachment commander telephoned Mr. Eadie, Jr. and arranged to meet with him; that Mr. Eadie, Jr. told the RCMP detachment commander that he had information to supply on both users and traffickers of drugs in Cornwall and he began supplying information to the RCMP detachment commander on April 24, 1969. He was first paid for information on April 30, 1969.
At this point, may I make it clear to hon. members that at the time Mr. Eadie, Jr. was first contacted by the RCMP he was 18 years and eight months old and was not a juvenile.
Mr. Eadie, Jr. received intermittent payments totalling $710 for information which resulted in successful police actions in 14 cases between April 30, 1969, and February 18, 1971, the latter being the last occasion upon which Mr. Eadie, Jr. received informant payments from the RCMP. Mr. Eadie, Jr. did continue, however, to supply information on a voluntary basis to the RCMP detachment at Long Sault until July, 1971, without receiving any money.
Second allegation: Mr. Eadie Jr. said, when questioned as to whether his parents were aware of his activities, "No, they were not. They weren't aware of anything at all".
The facts are that about six weeks after the initial contact was between Mr. Eadie, Jr. and the RCMP Mr. Eadie's parents were made aware of their son's activities. This was confirmed by telephone from the RCMP detachment commander at Long Sault to Mr. Eadie's father on on or about June 1, 1969. The father expressed approval of his son's activities and, in fact, on two occasions he accompanied his son to the RCMP detachment of Long Sault when he went to collect payments. Hon. members should also know that in the early spring of 1971 Mr. Eadie's father in discussion with the RCMP at Long Sault implied that the association Mr. Eadie, Jr. had with the RCMP was beneficial to him.
Third allegation: Mr. Eadie, Jr. said that the RCMP were "threatening me because I had a choice to come across with information or get busted by them even as far as getting planted with drugs on me and sent back up for this".
The facts are that Mr. Eadie, Jr. offered his services to the Cornwall City Police and the RCMP voluntarily; that he was never threatened, intimidated or coerced into giving information to members of the RCMP with whom he came into contact prior to his leaving the Cornwall area in July, 1971; that during the period between April 24, 1969, and July, 1971, there were no charges pending or laid against Mr. Eadie, Jr. known to either the RCMP or the Cornwall city police.
Fourth allegation: In reply to the question "How many busts did you help make over?" Mr. Eadie, Jr. said "three over a two and a half year period". The facts are that Mr. Eadie gave information on many occasions; that he was paid for providing information on 21 different occasions
September 17, 1971

from April 30, 1969, until February 18, 1971; that the information Mr. Eadie provided contributed to 14 successful police actions.
Fifth allegation: Mr. Eadie, Jr. said his use as an informant "ended pretty well after my beating, when I got beat up because I was too scared to even leave the house for about six months, because they would not give me protection or anything so, I pack it in." Mr. Eadie, Jr. also said that he asked for police protection from "the RCMP and they laughed it off" and he implied that as a result of the beating he had lost his teeth.
The facts are that on the day of the alleged beating of Mr. Eadie, Jr. on June 8, 1969, the RCMP detachment commander at Long Sault accompanied by a member of the Cornwall city police were called to the Eadie home; that Mr. Eadie, Jr. and both his parents were present; that it was observed that Mr. Eadie, Jr. had a small cut on his upper lip for which he refused medical attention; that there was no apparent damage to his teeth; that a member of the Cornwall city police was present in case assault charges were to be laid by the Eadie family; and that the family refused to press charges. Hon. members should note that after the alleged beating on June 8, 1969, Mr. Eadie, Jr. supplied information on 14 different occasions until July, 1971-a period of over two years after the alleged beating. It should also be noted that Mr. Eadie, Jr. was seen by members of the RCMP detachment at Long Sault about one week after the alleged beating in the downtown section of Cornwall and he did not try to conceal his presence. At no time did Mr. Eadie, Jr. ever ask for police protection from a member of the RCMP. [Translation]
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to state to the House that I am satisfied that the investigation conducted by the Commissioner of the RCMP into the very serious allegations made by Mr. Robert W. Eadie Jr. was thorough, competent and conclusive. I can assure the House that the allegations of impropriety and misconduct which were made about officers of the RCMP in connection with the case are untrue and malicious.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that the minister, who has read a lengthy statement on an important subject, would have made sure that hon. members on this side of the House were provided with copies of the statement prior to its being read in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Baldwin:: The minister's failure to do so is an abuse of privilege.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I say that particularly because the statement was so important. In dealing with an important matter such as the administration of the law, may I say at the outset that the carrying out of the law is very important, and the good name of Canada has been somewhat connected with the good name of the RCMP. I am happy that the minister has had the matter investigated, but it may be that there should have been a more independent investigation.
RCMP Informants
I want to refer to one aspect that I think is most serious. In this technological age, in this age of electronics, police forces such as the RCMP or those operating in urban centres do not need to hire stool pigeons. Whether a person is 17, 18 or 19 years of age is mere quibbling. The fact is that if people are used and paid to give information, they are not really volunteering information. The element of materialism is being used to acquire information by the payment of money. From personal experience in acting as defence counsel on certain drug cases I know that stoolpigeons have been used by the police not only in urban centres but by the RCMP elsewhere. In this technological age the police have other methods of investigation without having to use the human elements of stoolpigeons and paying for information. I am always a little suspicious about the kind of information and evidence obtained from a man who has had his palm crossed with dollars.
The weakness in the minister's statement, if I might put my finger on it, is that he says the RCMP are no longer going to use juveniles but instead use the age under the new offenders act-I could say something about that, but I do not want to digress-and that even though they are not going to use persons 17 or 18 years of age it is all right to use persons beyond that age. In this technological and electronic age it is not necessary to use that kind of method to feed the police information when carrying on an investigation. I think that is where most of the trouble arises.
This investigation was carried out by the distinguished commissioner of the RCMP, a man of great integrity, but I hope the minister will not now oppose, as he has previously, this matter going before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs so that the report prepared by the minister's officials and read by him, the report on the investigation made by the commissioner of the RCMP could be examined and proper questions put by members of that committee to avoid any suspicion that there might be any prejudice or that there might have been a whitewash. In other words, it would be in the interests of the integrity that hon. members believe the RCMP have. If the report is honest and straightforward and if the investigation has been thorough as the minister would have us believe, then, although he always has refused, he should be prepared to allow the commissioner or anyone else who had anything to do with the investigation to come forward and give evidence at the committee level. If Mr. Eadie wishes he could also come forward and tell his side of the story so that the whole matter would be before us and we would not have any more problems. We must always guard against overzealousness in police work but we must also see that the law of the land is carried out. If it is flaunted, how can the citizens of Canada have any respect for the law?
I am not going to say any more because this is not the time to be talking in a political vein. The matter is too important and too close to all members of the House, no matter where they sit. I hope that the next time the minister has such a lengthy report on such a serious matter we can be provided with advance copies so that we can analyse it and reply to it intelligently.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

September 17, 1971
RCMP Informants


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I tried, as I am sure others did, to follow closely what the minister said. I had some difficulty in doing so because the subject is complex and the matter of great seriousness and consequence. We wanted to be sure that we understood correctly every phrase he used. Regretfully this was not possible in listening to the minister whether in the official language with which I am familiar or through the translation system. Like the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), I think it would have been much more appropriate and much more generous if the minister had followed the practice established some years ago by previous governments and other cabinet ministers by making his statement available in advance to opposition members so that the same care and precision could be given to the responses as were given to the preparation of the minister's statement.
One thing the minister's statement proves is that perhaps the best policemen in this nation are not in the police forces but outside of it, those who are supplying information in the manner that the minister admitted has been followed in this and other cases. One point I tried to raise earlier in connection with this case is that by using young people as informers, whether they are of statutory age or not, and paying them for information the RCMP is participating in the seduction of these persons into a type of activity which places their lives in jeopardy. We all know the value which those in the underworld or on the fringe of the underworld place on the life of an informer, and the propriety of the RCMP engaging in an activity of this type warrants examination from the moral point of view.
Had it not been for the disclosures made by Mr. Eadie on television, this matter might never have come to light. I am not surprised, incidentally, that what he said was not considered to be factual and that the minister has had to refute him point by point because, as the minister knows, one cannot place a great deal of credence upon what a paid informer says; maybe the CBC did not pay him enough to tell the whole truth. In any event, had it not been for Mr. Eadie disclosing the fact that he had been a paid informer the minister and the government would never have been in the position of having to disclose what had taken place and would no doubt have continued to keep the subject matter secret and have denied the circumstances at every opportunity as the minister did on a previous occasion.
This brings us to the point I raised on an earlier occasion concerning the necessity of conducting a counterbalancing examination into practices of this sort. I can think of nobody more appropriate than the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, consisting, as it does, of representatives of all parties of the House all of whom are equally concerned about the security of the nation, the dangers of criminality and the position the RCMP occupies in the eyes of the public as an agency enforcing the law.
It might well be that if the minister took the step of referring this matter to the committee meetings would have to be held in camera. Naturally so. A lot of the information which the police have in their possession should not be divulged to the public, since part of the

public is involved in the criminal world. I am sure nobody serving on the committee would object to such information being provided in camera. But it seems to me that for the RCMP itself, which took the initial steps to employ this informer and undoubtedly is still doing so, to carry out an examination of its own conduct and present it to the minister with the words, "this is what we have discovered about our own conduct", is really not fairly balanced regardless of how valuable we think the commissioner is, or anything of that sort. We need another kind of examination. I believe that the parliamentary committee, which I am sure has as much integrity contained within it as the minister, would be an appropriately balanced group to examine this matter and other types of conduct by the RCMP and maybe even by the minister's own secret force of which he is so proud.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-267, to amend the Criminal Code (false alarm of fire-penalty).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to increase the penalty to be imposed on those who are found guilty of such an offence and, at the same time, to counteract the propensity some people have for ringing false alarms.
This bill will also have a psychological impact in that it will draw public attention on the seriousness of such a futile gesture as ringing false alarms. As a matter of fact, in the city of Montreal alone, more than 6,000 false alarms have been rung in the last year; this represents a very grave danger for both the firemen and the whole of the population.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield'(Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister a question. In view of the fact that it is impossible for me to have any confidence in the judgment of the Minister of Finance or to regard the Minister of Manpower and Immigration as anything more than an apologist for the government-


Some hon. Members:: Question!
September 17, 1971


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the government itself is now convinced that further immediate measures are required to create jobs?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: The economic policy of the government is always under review and if it is considered necessary to make changes they will be announced.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of warnings for several months that unemployment was not declining as had been presupposed by the budget, and yesterday's figures having removed any doubt at all, I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the Prime Minister saw to it that there was a contingency plan to put into effect and, if so, when will that plan come into action?


Mitchell William Sharp: The government has been just as aware of the developing economic situation as the opposition and perhaps has access to more of the facts. I would not hesitate to say that the government is prepared to change its policy if such a course seems to be desirable, but there are no simple solutions. A simple solution such as cutting taxes in order to stimulate the economy is such a popular measure that we would have adopted it long since if it had been the easiest and most acceptable way of achieving appropriate results.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I take it it is plain the government has no such contingency plan. In light of the figures released yesterday with regard to the increase in the cost of living, would the minister not at least give an undertaking on behalf of the government that the escalation freeze of 2 per cent on the guaranteed income supplement for old age pensioners will be removed so that at least that amount of justice can be rendered to the older people of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Howard: Since the July index of industrial production showed a decline, as well as the value of manufactured shipments, which in Ontario alone declined by 19.1 per cent in a period which preceded the application of the 10 per cent surtax by the United States, may I ask whether these circumstances would not motivate the government into trying to do something-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Frank Howard: -instead of just covering up?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



UNEMPLOYMENT-PRESENTATION OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROJECTIONS AND PROGRAMS AT CONFERENCE WITH PREMIERS

Mr. lames A. McGrath (St. John's East):: I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister. Has the government assured the premiers that at the forthcoming conference with the premiers the federal government will spell out, as requested by the provinces, the government's projections for unemployment this winter and next year? Further, will the government at the conference present specific programs to curb winter unemployment?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, just what will be on the agenda for this meeting is something that has to be decided by the Prime Ministers of the provinces and the federal government. I would certainly hesitate at this time to lay down an agenda; I am sure that my hon. friend would want the Prime Ministers of the provinces to have a say.


James Aloysius McGrath: When the matter was first discussed with the premiers was the question of an agenda for the conference discussed? If so, has there been a tentative agreement with the premiers on an agenda?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is not customary to decide on an agenda until closer to the time of the meeting. There are many changes that are taking place and, as the hon. member is aware, some that have taken place since the meeting was planned.



OLD AGE SECURITY-LOWERING OF PENSIONABLE AGE TO PROMOTE EMPLOYMENT

Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Acting Prime Minister.
As a policy establishing at 60 the eligibility for old age pension would increase by more than 50 per cent the unemployment rate, would the Acting Prime Minister say whether this government has considered bringing as soon as possible a measure to that effect?


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Joliette wish to put another supplementary?


Roch La Salle: I am under the impression, Mr. Speaker, that the Acting Prime Minister has not understood my question, and since we are seeking a solution to unemployment, and since I believe that I have one, I should like to put my question once again.
Since I think that the payment of the old age pension at 60 could reduce unemployment by over 50 per cent, I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the government has considered taking such a step?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker.



UNEMPLOYMENT-FORMULATION OF SPECIFIC PROGRAMS TO ALLEVIATE PROBLEM IN CONJUNCTION WITH PROVINCES AND MUNICIPALITIES

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the significance of the figures indicated yesterday by the Prime Minister, and in view of the well known seasonal increase in unemployment in the winter months, can the Acting Prime Minister indicate if plans are presently being formulated for specific proposals and programs to work with the provinces and municipalities in order to alleviate very serious unemployment later this year?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, a wide range of possibilities is under study, yes.

September 17, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Regina East on a supplementary, and then the hon. member for Villeneuve, and return to sup-plementaries on this subject.



UNEMPLOYMENT-MEASURES TO LOWER INTEREST RATES ON LOANS TO STIMULATE DOMESTIC DEMAND FOR GOODS

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the increase in the profits of Canada's chartered banks which has been brought on by the widening gap between interest rates on deposits and on loans, is the government considering any measures to lower interest rates on loans in order to stimulate domestic demand for goods?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there has been a very sharp reduction in interest rates in Canada. One proof of this is the lower interest rates that are now being paid on government savings bonds and other government instruments.



INTEREST RATE ON SALE OF WHEAT TO PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Mr. Oza Tetrault (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.
Can he tell us what interest rate the People's Republic of China will be charged on its recent purchase of 500,000 tons of wheat, since the terms of the sale provide that a 75 per cent balance will be payable over an 18-month period?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I was not able to understand all of the question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member could perhaps ask his question again.


Oza Tétrault: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Could the minister indicate what interest rate the People's Republic of China will be charged on the purchase of 500,000 tons of wheat, since the terms of the sale provide that a 75 per cent balance will be payable over an 18-month period?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the exact interest rate, the price and other commercial details relating to wheat transactions are not normally revealed by the board. I understand the Wheat Board refers to the interest rate as being, in this case, a competitive interest rate.



WITHHOLDING BY GOVERNMENT OF PAYMENTS UNDER TEMPORARY WHEAT RESERVES ACT

['In view of this situation, is the government ready to take responsibility for all the consequences of its negative attitude toward western Canada?']
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister a question. In light of the statement made by the minister in charge of the Wheat Board during the emergency debate last night, will the Acting Prime Minister assure the House that the law of Canada will now be obeyed by the cabinet and carried out forthwith?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government of Canada, of course, observes the law.


An hon. Member:: Then pay up.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I take it from the answer of the Acting Prime Minister that he will be directing the Minister of Finance and the minister in charge of the Wheat Board to make these payments forthwith in accordance with the terms of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I assume that the hon. member's supplementary question is in the form of a suggestion. May I say to hon. members that I hope we will not pursue this morning the debate that took place last night. I appreciate the importance of the matter. I believe there are a number of supplementaries on this point, but I would invite hon. members to keep in mind that we spent some time overnight on this subject. I believe the hon. member for Calgary North has a supplementary question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I was not making any suggestion. Let me put my question again. The Acting Prime Minister said that the laws of Canada will be carried out. In view of the fact that the minister in charge of the Wheat Board said there would not be any payment made, I now ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the government is directing that the payments in question under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act be made forthwith?


Mitchell William Sharp: This question, as you have said, Mr. Speaker, was discussed ad nauseam, I gather, last night, and the minister gave the answer of the government behind which I stand.


Mr. Gleave:: Mr. Speaker, may I-


Mr. Nesbitt:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar. The hon. member for Oxford is seeking the floor on a question of privilege.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, in view of the admitted and continuing refusal by the government to carry out the law of Canada as passed by the Parliament of Canada, which action clearly affects the privileges of all hon. members of this House-I refer, of course, to the proceedings in the House last evening-it seems quite clear that a motion to test the views of the members of the House on this continued lawbreaking should be debated at once. Accordingly, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith):
That the motion in the terms filed by the hon. member for Peace River be now put.
September 17, 1971

If Your Honour agrees that such a motion would be in order, I am sure the hon. member for Peace River would be happy to proceed with his motion which reads as follows:
That a special committee of five members, having the powers of a standing committee under Standing Order 65(8), be appointed to examine and inquire into the continuing refusal by the appropriate government ministers to pay, as required under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is seeking the floor on a question of privilege and suggests that there is a question of privilege which ought to be referred to a committee along the lines of a motion that is already on the order paper under the sponsorship of the hon. member for Peace River. That, of course, has given me an opportunity to determine whether the motion as posed by the hon. member for Peace River is truly a question of privilege or a privileged motion, which is what the hon. member for Oxford is seeking to move now in association, I assume, with the hon. member for Peace River.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: No, Your Honour.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking the Chair to rule whether there is a prima facie case of privilege. I would remind the hon. member that normally under the Standing Orders of the House he should give the usual notice of a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair is entitled to be heard by the House without all this noise.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I assure hon. members that I am fully aware of all the circumstances of what is going on in the House at the present time. The suggestion is that the motion being made now is a motion of privilege. I am not prepared to entertain a lengthy debate on whether this is a question of privilege. It is the responsibility of the Chair to determine whether there is a prima facie of privilege. I am quite prepared to make my ruling on this point. The hon. member for Oxford seems to think that I have interrupted him. This is the last thing in the world I would wish to do and I will hear him further if he thinks he has other considerations to put forward for the guidance of the Chair.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I was reading the motion to refresh the memories of hon. members. Or at least of those who have not seen the motion of the hon. member for Peace River. I shall not continue because it is on today's order paper. Your Honour has brought up a point that perhaps I have not given adequate notice to the Chair in view of the fact that this is a question of privilege. I submit in this regard that my question of privilege arises out of the reply of the Acting Prime Minister to the hon. member for Calgary North during the House proceedings and I raised the point at the very moment and as quickly as I possibly could. It is my understanding of the rules-
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I know that rule. The hon. member does not have to explain it to me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member, and I made this point a moment ago, that I appreciated it was not necessary to give the usual notice. I am telling the hon. member now that I appreciate that point. If he has additional submissions to make for the consideration of the Chair they ought not to be related to this point on which I am in perfect agreement with him.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I am glad to hear that, Your Honour. I hope your Honour would give very careful consideration to this point. This matter has become one of great urgency. I feel that Your Honour should rule there is a prima facie case of privilege since the privileges of all members of this House are affected by what the minister in charge of the Wheat Board said last night and which is on the record. Surely hon. members should have an opportunity for the earliest possible debate to express their views on this whole matter. It would seem to me that Friday afternoon is a good opportunity to do this. Many members can be present this weekend. There is no great urgency in respect of the present business before the House that it could not wait for half a day.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appreciate the points made by the hon. member. He is suggesting, of course, that there should be a further special debate on this matter which has been raised by other hon. members by way of questions and motions during the last week or so. As I said, I would find it very difficult to overlook the fact that there has been a lengthy debate. Perhaps some hon. members would not want me to take that into consideration, but I do not think I can do that. I have to take into account that, the matter having been raised by the hon. member for Calgary North, the hon. member for Vegre-ville, the hon. member for Regina East and others during previous days, after much consideration and a great deal of hesitation I thought that the matter was so important that it justified the application of Standing Order 26. It is because of that that I thought a special debate should be held. Of course I could have suggested yesterday that the debate not be held yesterday but take place this afternoon and this evening, as now suggested by the hon. member for Oxford. In any event it has already been held. As to whether there should be a further debate today, I would have to be satisfied that there is a prima facie case of privilege and before the matter would go before the House for consideration of a motion and for determination by the House as to whether there is a question of privilege. That is exactly the ruling I have to make at the present time.
The suggestion made by the hon. member for Oxford, and I am sure by other hon. members who support his point of view, is that there is a question of privilege. Hon. members will remember that the matter was brought to the attention of the Chair earlier on a question of privilege and which was considered at that time. The suggestion at that time was that the law was not being followed and that there was therefore, in all the circumstances which have been explained for the guidance of the Chair, a breach of parliamentary privilege. Again, after looking at the

September 17, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
matter with all possible sympathy and as objectively as I could, I thought there was not a prima facie question of privilege.
Since the hon. member for Peace River put his motion on the order paper I have, of course, had to consider again whether the motion as drafted and placed on the order paper actually amounted to a privileged motion because, if that were so, it would have to be given priority. This was why I said to the hon. member for Oxford immediately at the outset of his remarks that the matter had to be considered because the decision in respect of a debate has to be made immediately.
The hon. member for Peace River gave notice of his motion the day before yesterday and I had to consider what place it should be given on the order paper. Again I spent a considerable amount of time reflecting on the matter and considering all its procedural aspects. The decision I reached at that point, which is obvious because of the priority given to the motion on the order paper, and which I am afraid I have to tell hon. members I have to stand by, was that there was not a prima facie case of privilege.
I could give citations, which I had to look into of course when a decision had to be made in connection with the motion of the hon. member for Peace River. I would think hon. members would want to refer them to the well known decision of Mr. Speaker Michener which is recorded at pages 581 to 586 of the Journals for Friday, June 19, 1959, and which I have quoted very often.
I am making strictly a procedural decision. Should this matter be debated again today but this time as a question of privilege? My suggestion to hon. members is that if there is to be further or continued debate on this very important matter, it should not be done under the guise or under the umbrella of a question of privilege. In the way in which the motion has been set down by the hon. member for Peace River it is essentially, as I see it, a non-confidence motion, a censure motion, if you will, which ought to be debated either as a formal substantive motion, on which the usual private member's notice has to be given, or as a supply motion which would require a vote of the House of Commons. I really do not see how the matter could come before the House at any time except in this way, unless by agreement among all members.
I respectfully suggest to hon. members that I have looked at the matter objectively and in a spirit of co-operation with hon. members on both sides of the House. This is evidenced, I think, by the fact that yesterday I agreed there should be a debate under Standing Order 26. But I do not think it would be procedurally correct to have a further debate under the Standing Order which provides for a privileged debate.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, we feel that the decision Your Honour gave yesterday in permitting the debate was a wise and proper one, but I think we are now in a different situation as a result of remarks made in that debate last night. Surely the purpose of an emergency debate on an issue so important and critical is to see what position is taken by hon. members. The rules do not permit a vote. Of course that is what the House has decided. However, as a result of statements made by the minister yesterday and repeated in effect by the Acting

Prime Minister today a new situation has developed and we now know publicly by a declaration that the government intends to continue to refuse to obey the law.


An hon. Member:: Right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Of course I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member for Peace River except perhaps for a moment. I should like to invite him to indicate what his point is. My thought is that the only question that is before the Chair now is whether there is a prima facie case of privilege. I have told all hon. members to the best of my ability and as clearly as I could-I know that is not always as clear as it might be-that I cannot honestly and fairly come to that conclusion. I have looked into the matter and, even if the hon. member says that a very serious situation has been indicated by statements made in this House, I was able to reach no other conclusion than that the matter should not be debated and considered by way of a question of privilege. I have indicated why I have reached that conclusion and made the ruling that there is no prima facie case of privilege. If the hon. member is trying to persuade the Chair there is a question of privilege, I do not think that would be in order. He may have other suggestions to make, perhaps on his own question of privilege or point of order, and I will hear him of course.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I was leading up to that because Your Honour was good enough to indicate that you had examined the terms of the motion I had filed. It is because of the situation which developed that I filed that motion. In my opinion, it is a motion of censure or a motion of impeachment. Your Honour may want to hear argument on that point later. I do not propose at this stage to become involved in a long and difficult argument. I filed the motion reserving to myself, as I thought, the right to advance argument to indicate that if this motion satisfied your Honour, then under the circumstances it should be debated as a substantive motion. I thought, after listening to what the hon. member for Oxford said, that he tried to reach that same objective by a different route. I simply say that I am reserving that right for a later stage. But I do say, if the House agrees, that in view of the continuance of this serious situation, not only in western Canada but all over the nation, involving the continuing refusal of the government to obey the law, I believe some opportunity should be given to test, by recorded vote, the views of members of the House.
[DOT] (Noon)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I fully appreciate the position as explained by the hon. member for Peace River, and I see that his approach is not the same as that taken by the hon. member for Oxford. Of course, the hon. member does not have to reserve the right to make that argument. He can always rise on a point of order to make an argument and he would be heard by the Chair, as he knows.
I think that, in the circumstances, there is no point in pursuing further the point raised by the hon. member for Oxford.
September 17, 1971



Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: My
question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Would he explain to the House why Communist China denies to the representatives of Canadian Press and other Canadian news media the privileges extended to the Red Chinese press by Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: We have been making representations to the government of China both before and since we entered into diplomatic relations. I can assure the hon. member that we would like to have further representation of Canadian newspapers in Peking. But of course this is a decision that can only be made by the Chinese government.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Would the Acting Prime Minister be prepared to table the documents in this House so that the Canadian people can judge for themselves whether or not Red China has breached the agreement that was entered into by Canada and mainland China when recognition took place?


Mitchell William Sharp: There are no documents of this kind. The only exchange that took place between our two governments that was of a formal character was the announcement of the establishment of diplomatic relations.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: May I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact the special debate last night revealed that the government has no authority to refuse payments to the Wheat Board under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act for the benefit of farmers, will the government now issue instructions that these payments be made without delay?


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not
think I can add anything to what my colleague said last night in the debate. We do not consider that the government has breached the law.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: In view of this situation, is the government ready to take responsibility for all the consequences of its negative attitude toward western Canada?



MANPOWER


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, even though we worked late into the night, I see the Minister of Manpower and Immigration is here and I should like to put a question to him.
Inquiries of the Ministry
In his letter to the Prime Minister of Canada, the Quebec premier, Mr. Bourassa, said, and I quote:
- the Quebec government would also like to inform you that, in its opinion, there would be great advantages to using the same approach in dealing with both manpower centres and adult vocational training.
In view of the circumstances, can the minister tell the House whether there has been an exchange of views or correspondence between the Quebec and Ottawa authorities on this subject?


Otto Emil Lang: The departments of the various provinces dealing with manpower, apprenticeship and training and the federal government are in fairly constant contact. In this particular case, we had special discussions over a period of time in regard to several issues, and these discussions may well occur again.



HOUSING


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: My question is for the Minister of State in charge of housing. Would the minister make the necessary investigation and report to the House with regard to the fiasco that has arisen with regard to the project called Les Abeilles in Laval and ensure that his investigation be sufficiently deep to establish whether there has been culpable incompetence or downright dishonesty both within CMHC and by other persons involved?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: The financial difficulties of the developer have been made known to me and, as of just a few days ago, CMHC has been able to take possession of the homes in the project and to move beyond that to reassure those people who have purchased homes of the satisfactory completion of the homes. We have, in addition, extended the guarantee for the repurchase of the homes for a period up to 18 months past the date when we say these homes are in fact completed. The reaction from the people involved has been a reasonable one. In fact, I was told a couple of days ago that only seven of the purchasers may wish to take advantage of the repurchase guarantee that we have offered. Indeed, we set up offices there the other day and, in addition to dealing with people in the project now, we are having to deal with other people who are coming to ask us how they can buy homes in that project.
We are going beyond that to review the whole process leading to this difficulty that was encountered, and I will be very glad at some stage, if the evidence warrants it, to report the findings to the House.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Would the minister kindly advise the House if he intends to indicate to the House whether there was incompetence in this regard and how much additional money it is going to cost CMHC to bale out this project which has arisen out of a number of

September 17, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
circumstances. If the solution is satisfactory, that is fine, but what is going to be the cost to get that solution?


Robert Knight Andras: I think I have indicated that when all these alleged facts are established as facts and not allegations, I will be glad to make them known to the House.



AIR CANADA


Mr.   Claude-G. Lajoie@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Could he tell the House how far things have gone with regard to Air Canada's intention to discontinue its air service to Trois-Rivieres?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, so far as I am aware Air Canada have made known their intention to the Canadian Transport Commission, the body which deals with all such applications, but I do not believe it has been disposed of yet.



WELFARE


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister related to earlier questions on the economy. In light of the Prime Minister's comment yesterday that he is desirous of meeting with the provinces with a view to reviewing the Canada Assistance Plan and other programs, can we construe from that that the government is prepared, if methods can be found, to pour more money into the provinces to help offset the cost of those programs under their jurisdictions during the coming winter?


Mitchell William Sharp: If the
levels of unemployment are higher than had been expected, with a resulting increase in relief, of course our expenditures will rise because we pay half of these costs.


J. Michael Forrestall: My question was designed to ascertain from the Acting Prime Minister whether or not he would indicate if the government, in light of the Prime Minister's comment yesterday, is prepared to find methods of putting more money, not only the normal increases but additional funds, into the hands of the provinces?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I could not give any such assurance. I am quite sure that the provinces will be urging the federal government to take up a greater share of these costs, but what the position of the federal government will be I could not say for certain. At the moment, we are not considering any change in the arrangements.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the hon. gentleman aware that when Mr. Elmer Hill, a Mohawk Indian born near Deseronto, Ontario, sought to acquire a passport he was advised by telephone on two occasions by the passport office here in Ottawa that he would first have to become a Canadian citizen?


Mitchell William Sharp: I will inquire into the situation and report, Mr. Speaker.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Would he be prepared, if he has not done so already, to make a declaration that people of Indian origin, born in Canada, are Canadian citizens?



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister supplementary to that of my colleague a few moments ago. In view of the statement he made earlier in the question period that the government has access to more facts than the opposition and the general public about the economic affairs of Canada, can he indicate whether any special studies have been made regarding expected economic problems in Canada this winter, and whether we can expect any of these studies to be made public?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there are studies under way continuously, and needless to say we are making a very special study of the kind of conditions that will prevail this winter. Whether these can be published, or whether it would be in the public interest to publish them, I am not quite sure. Certainly, however, the results would be revealed if the government decided to make any changes in its policies.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In light of the press conference that he held yesterday, can he indicate when he discovered that Canada has an expanding labour force, and how-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Moose Jaw.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY DECISION ON POSSIBLE INCREASE IN TOLLS-REQUEST FOR REFERENCE OF CARR REPORT TO COMMITTEE

Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of
September 17, 1971

the many submissions made to the minister in the past and of some that are being made at the present time opposing increased tolls on the St. Lawrence Seaway, can the minister say whether any decision has been made that increased tolls will be enacted before next spring?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No,
Mr. Speaker. The situation is as I have outlined to the House on several previous occasions. No decision has been made. Representations are still coming in. It is my intention to get as many representations as possible before considering the matter. In the interim, some talks are going on with the United States, as I believe is a matter of public knowledge, at the official level between the two Seaway authorities with a view to getting a better understanding of some of the findings of the Carr report, which in effect indicated that the U.S. portion of the cost is less than the value that the United States is getting out of the Seaway in relation to what Canada is getting out of the Seaway.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, would the minister give consideration to referring the Carr report to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications so that submissions can be made to that committee?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to give consideration to that, but it might be a more appropriate course for us to accumulate all of the submissions and then submit those as well as the report to the committee, perhaps at the time that the Seaway authority is being examined by the committee. I have no objection to the committee having a look at the whole picture.



HARBOURS


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of reports that facilities at Thunder Bay are not adequate for seagoing vessels and that there is a slow turn-around of vessels, will the minister investigate these allegations and report to the House or take steps to correct the situation?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Without going into details, I think it is fair to say that improvements are being made on a regular basis at Thunder Bay and other terminals. I would hope that those who are making representations with regard to increased costs on the Seaway, that is, users of the Seaway, and others who impose much higher charges than we do, would co-operate with us in trying to keep down the over-all cost of shipments on the Seaway.
Inquiries of the Ministry



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Acting Prime Minister.
Since a plenary session of the Agence de cooperation culturelle et technique des pays francophones is scheduled for mid-October in Ottawa and Quebec City, and in view of the fact that according to an agreement reached in Niamey a year ago Quebec was considered as a participating country, could the Acting Prime minister advise the House whether Quebec's aspirations will be met during this conference? If not, could he inform the House as to the status of negotiations between the two governments?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions at the official level, and within the next few days I expect that my colleague, the Secretary of State, and myself will be having discussions with ministers of the Quebec government to determine the status of the Quebec delegation at the forthcoming meeting of the agency.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. On June 30 the minister told the House that he had conveyed to Air Canada the desire of the government that Air Canada put together a package of special rates for travel within Canada. Now that Air Canada has filed special rates for trans-Atlantic flights, can the minister tell the House if it has acceded to his request and if we can expect an announcement soon on domestic rates?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am not at all certain whether a specific package of fares has been filed in terms of domestic routes. I do know, however, as I imagine the hon. member does, that a number of special excursion package fares within Canada have been announced. I will inquire whether any special package has been filed and pass on any information I get to the hon. member.


PACIFIC GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Having in mind the number of accidents which in recent years have afflicted the Pacific Great Eastern Railway, now known as the British Columbia Railway, has the federal Department of Transport any connection with,

September 17, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
influence over, or responsibility for the safety standards on that line?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. However, I fear I did not have sufficient time to get an answer to it. I would like to examine it from a legal point of view, because clearly the answer is not the type that should be given without getting all of the details first.


RAPESEED-STOP ORDER ON DELIVERY OF VARIETIES LOW IN ERUCIC ACID
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the stop order placed on the delivery of low erucic acid varieties of rapeseed, which quality was to have been a promotional feature for this seed, can the minister give any indication why this has occurred and when deliveries may be normalized?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Wheat Board reacted to the request of the industry expressed by the Canadian Rape-seed Growers Association which indicated that excessive delivery of low erucic acid rapeseed at the early stage of the year, compared with the later stages of the year, might cause difficulties in the use of that seed in the preparation of oil of uneven quality over the year and that it would be much more satisfactory if the flow of the low erucic acid type were more steady. As a result the board temporarily lowered the quota on that particular kind of rapeseed although, as I understand it, they have no difficulty in assuring that eventually during the crop year the quota will permit the taking of the whole crop of low erucic rapeseed.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of reports that the United States import surtax is not to be lifted so far as Canada is concerned, is the government considering urging Canadian financial institutions to extend credit to firms which are affected by this surcharge and, in particular, to extend credit to small businesses and farmers?


Mitchell William Sharp: I thank the hon. gentleman for the suggestion, Mr. Speaker. I think it is a reasonable one, and it is an approach that we would certainly encourage.


PROPOSED TAPS TANKER ROUTE-REPLY BY UNITED STATES TO CANADIAN REPRESENTATIONS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question concerning his letter to the Secretary of State of the United States, with which he enclosed a copy of the report of the Special Committee on the environment. Could the minister indicate if he has had a reply from his American counterpart? Could he give the nature of that reply and, considering the very urgent situation, would he not obtain permission to table it?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there has been no reply. I have followed up the communications I have had with the Secretary of State and he has assured me that our recommendations, particularly in relation to the Strait of Juan de Fuca and so on, are under study. Of course, no decision has yet been made because no decision has been made even about the TAPS line itself. As I say, I do not think there is anything more I can add. There are no other documents.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the House might allow the hon. member for Fraser Valley West to ask a supplementary to the previous question. We reached the end of the question period a while ago but I thought the House would want the Chair to prolong the agony for a few minutes because of the time spent on a very interesting point of order. Having said that, I should like to recognize the hon. member for Fraser Valley West on a supplementary question.


REQUEST BY BRITISH COLUMBIA GROWERS FOR EXPORT ASSISTANCE-LEGISLATION TO PROTECT AGAINST DUMPING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: I wonder if I could direct my agony in the form of a supplementary question. It is related to one asked a moment ago by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce or someone who might reply for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the difficulties faced by the Canadian apple industry as a result of the U.S. surcharge and also a poor apple crop this year, has the government made a decision yet on the request by the British Columbia tree fruit growers for $66,000 in export assistance similar to that contemplated for industries in Bill C-262?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to look into it if I am the one who is supposed to do so. As the hon. member knows, any processing of apples will be covered by the bill which is presently in committee. I shall look at other aspects of the question and answer as soon as I can.
September 17, 1971


Mark Willson Rose: I wonder if I could impose on your good nature to ask one more supplementary, Mr. Speaker. As Canadian agricultural marketing is constantly being threatened by dumped imports or foreign offers at distress prices, is the government preparing some protective legislation that can be applied instantly to protect Canadian producers of agricultural products?


Jean-Luc Pepin: We have persistently protested this when done by other countries, so it is sometimes difficult for Canada to do the same thing. I will look more closely into the positive aspects of the matter.


GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, September 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gray (for Mr. Benson) that Bill C-259, to amend the Income Tax Act and to make certain provisions and alterations in the statute law related to or consequent upon the amendments to that act, be read the second time and referred to the committee of the whole, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West) (p. 7763).
James Aloysius McGrath: I should say at the outset, Mr. Speaker, that it had been my intention to move the adjournment of the debate because of the failure of the government to implement the provisions of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, as well as the attitude taken by the government during last night's emergency debate and the attitude expressed by the government in the House today through the Acting Prime Minister. However, since Your Honour has indicated that you still have under advisement the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) with respect to the substance of the motion and the priority of the motion, I shall refrain from doing so at this time, notwithstanding the fact that I feel we should not be proceeding with the normal business of the House until this matter has been resolved.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: In opening my remarks yesterday, I discussed the bill before the House in the context of the present economic situation in the country, emphasized and underlined by the statistics released yesterday by Statistics Canada with respect to unemployment and the rising cost of living. I said then, Mr. Speaker, that the bill was being discussed in an air of fantasy because the bill will not act as one of the important economic catalysts that it should be in this very critical period of high unemployment, rising inflation and the failure of present government policies to cope with those two facts.
The present policies of the government have failed to cure inflation. This fact is compounded by the increasing rate in unemployment-record unemployment.


Mr. Mahoney:: Record employment, too.
Income Tax Act


James Aloysius McGrath: Half a million Canadians were unemployed in the month of August.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: But 8j million employed.


James Aloysius McGrath: This might not be a serious matter for the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney), but I can tell the hon. parliamentary secretary that it is a very serious matter in other parts of Canada. We had half a million Canadians unemployed during the peak month of August. What can we expect in the months of January, February, March? One shudders to think of a million people in this country without jobs.
I realize that this matter might not be very important to hon. members opposite, Mr. Speaker, and I suggest that if they have no interest in it they should at least leave the House.


An hon. Member:: They will.


James Aloysius McGrath: One need not be an economist to think of what a million Canadians out of work will mean in terms of lost production, increasing welfare and the general economic contraction which will inevitably result. By deliberately operating the economy at less than its potential, the government is creating a substantial loss to Canada of millions of dollars a week in output and the result is a high level of unemployment.
Even yet, the full effect of the Nixon policies has to be felt. I am now talking about unemployment and inflation in this country prior to the Nixon 10 per cent import surcharge levelled on all imports by the United States government. And the unemployment rate continues to rise. Not only is it continuing to rise, but unfortunately it will escalate and worsen as a consequence of the Nixon policies.
It just does not make sense, Mr. Speaker, that we should be giving priority to a tax bill which does nothing to promote and improve the economy; which does nothing to create jobs for Canadians, which is the main issue and should be the main issue in this country today. The government must, as a priority, take urgent and immediate steps to prepare for the critically high winter unemployment which we know is coming. Even the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is now prepared to concede that fact.
Rather than occupying ourselves at the present time with a tax bill which deceptively presents itself as tax reform, the government should be moving ahead bringing into this Parliament a crash program to curb the rising unemployment-a program that will create jobs for Canadians, especially during the critical months of the winter when unemployment in this country will exceed one million at the present rate. My leader in his speech referred to the Opportunities for Youth program as a kind of summer works project. I will go one step further and suggest that we continue this kind of thinking or this kind of program under the general auspices of a winter works program, be it an opportunities for elders, an opportunities for youth or an opportunities for Canadians program. This is the type of worth-while project, worth-while thinking, that the government should be concerned about at present.
One provision in the bill before the House is worthy of immediate attention. It is one on which steps should be

September 17, 1971
Income Tax Act
taken immediately. I am speaking of the provision in the bill that would remove low level income Canadians from the tax rolls. That should be done this year and immediately, and not next year as anticipated by the legislation now before the House.
The official opposition has put forward in this House positive and definite proposals which would result in immediate action to stimulate the economy and fight the serious unemployment situation that hangs over this country like an omnimous, dark cloud. These proposals, enunciated by my leader, include the reduction of personal income taxes on a sliding scale, with the greatest reduction for Canadians in low and middle income brackets. These reductions should be implemented immediately, not next year. Our proposals include the elimination of the federal sales tax on building materials. That step should be taken now. That step would, at least, have the effect of providing jobs in the house construction industry. A consequential benefit would be that Canadians would be provided with additional, badly needed housing.
The government has admitted that $80 million will have to be drained from government revenues to soften the blow of the Nixon economic measures. That loss of funds means there will be a substantial cut in some of the funds available for housing. We should negotiate immediately with the provinces at a dominion-provincial conference, which should be called right away, in order that direct assistance to provinces and municipalities during the winter months may be made available under the Canada Assistance Plan. That would enable the provinces and municipalities to cope with increasing welfare costs and would provide them with more funds. Also, Mr. Speaker, we should re-introduce immediately a winter works program. If the government wants a vehicle for this winter works program, I suggest that it may be possible to use the Canada Assistance Plan as such a vehicle. Such a federal-provincial conference should have, as its first priority, the co-ordination of such a crash works program. The conference should be called now. It should be structured immediately. What we are looking for is a real winter works program that will produce jobs; we do not want a government snow job. We must provide such a program, because it is necessary and because the need for it is increasing. In addition, there should be a full employment budget. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) should introduce a new, full employment budget in this House.
The figures relating to unemployment deserve examination. I am glad that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) agrees that they deserve study. I know that the statistics on unemployment and on the cost of living have been repeated in this House several times during the past 24 hours, but they ought to be repeated, again, again and again until the government gets the message and until it realizes that it must act.
The unemployment rate, seasonally adjusted for Canada in August this year, stood at 6.5 per cent. That was the national rate and represented an increase over the previous month. In the Atlantic provinces, traditionally an area of chronically high unemployment, the unemployment rate stands at 9.4 per cent. That means that 9.4 per cent of the work force in the Atlantic provinces is unemployed. This represents a total in the four provinces

of 47,000 people who are looking for jobs. I am talking about August; I am not talking about last spring, last winter or next fall. In my province, Newfoundland, the situation is critical. I am sorry that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) is not present in the House, because he has a great responsibility in this matter. The situation in Newfoundland is nothing short of critical and I hope the Minister of Transport will have something to say about it. We are talking about the month of August, the peak month of the year, the month when employment should be at full tilt, when the construction industry is operating at its peak and when the primary industries are at their peak. Yet, for the month of August the figure for the province of Newfoundland, unadjusted, is 8.7 per cent. So, 8.7 per cent of the work force, or 14,000 people, in my province alone are looking for work.
When one considers that these figures do not include people attending manpower retraining programs, people in vocational training schools and people attending summer schools and summer university courses, one can predict accurately that the actual rate of unemployment in Newfoundland for the month of August will be found to have been in excess of 10 per cent. Surely, it follows that if 10 per cent of the work force in that province was unemployed in August, one can predict that anticipated figures for the month of January will be nothing short of disastrous. They will reach depression proportions. I think economists say that when your unemployment rate exceeds 25 per cent, you are in a depression.
Across the country there are some areas of improvement. There are few such areas, unfortunately. The general picture remains critical, so critical, Mr. Speaker, that it dictates that this government take immediate steps to start implementing the suggestions made in this House by my leader, by members of my party, by members of other parties and by myself.
To me, one of the most disturbing aspects of the unemployment figures is the continued high rate of unemployment for young people between the ages of 14 and 24. The figure has increased by 23,000 over that for one year ago for people in that age group. Today, in Canada, there are 240,000 young people who are able to work and yet who are denied the opportunity to do so. What kind of Canada are we providing for them; what kind of outlook are we giving them and what future do they have? In my view this is a criminal state of affairs.
The report of the Committee on Youth, commissioned by the Secretary of State's department, reads in part:
Both regionally and nationally the problems of youth have much the same chronic element usually associated with older workers. The trends repeated among the older youth groups as well suggest that high unemployment is a continuing problem of the young and also that their relative unemployment position has deteriorated further in the 1960's. This deterioration will continue. The tragedy of this statistical problem is that it becomes aggravated when national unemployment rises thus greatly understating the true magnitude of youth unemployment and the number of new jobs necessary to alleviate the problem.
I might add, Mr. Speaker, that as of April, this year, unemployment for teenage males stood at 2 5 times the national average and the unemployment rate for teenage females stood at a postwar high of 1.5 times the national average. It is fair to suggest that the young people of this country will turn this government off, and quite rightly so.
September 17, 1971

Income Tax Act
I ask, who has to bear the brunt of the government's ill conceived and outmoded concepts of economic policy. The young people, to speak of one group, have to bear the brunt. The regionally disadvantaged areas of the country have to bear the greatest burden. Those areas of the country cannot hope to gain from the government's regional development programs for some time if the government pursues its present course. That has been suggested by all the leading economists of the country. It has been placed on the record.
It is a fact and not a theory that for the disadvantaged regions of this country to be able to benefit both in the short and long term from the government's regional development policy, the regional development policy must work within a general government policy of full employment. Otherwise, one effectively cancels out the other. You cannot have one without the other.
This bill must be evaluated by asking if it moves the Canadian economy towards economic prosperity. What does it do for the Canadian economy at this critical point in our history? If it does not, and I suggest it does not, then the House should be more properly concerned with immediate and urgent crash programs to meet the serious situation in the country now and the serious situation that will flow from it in the months ahead. Unemployment in this country will reach disastrously high proportions.
This bill dictates to a degree Canada's economic climate. It must if it is to be what the government says. Economic prosperity in the sense of full employment is mandatory if regional economic expansion programs are to achieve their real potential. This government has been following a totally contradictory course with policies that are working at cross-purposes with the government's regional program. On the one hand, the government tries to solve economic disparity and, on the other, places a damper on the economy which will lead us to the darkest economic winter we have faced in many years. Full employment in Canada must be our immediate goal. It must be supported by a full employment budget.
The Economic Council of Canada defines full employment at 3.8 per cent; in other words, a national figure of 3.8 per cent unemployment. If you have 3.8 per cent unemployment, this means that in the province of Ontario, the industrial heartland of the country, you will have a rate of unemployment somewhere between 21 and 3 per cent. In an area like the Atlantic provinces, you aim for a realistic rate of about 5 per cent, certainly not more than 6 per cent.
At the present time, the rate of unemployment in the province of Ontario for the month of August stands at a whopping 5 per cent, up over the previous month of July. What chance do we in the Atlantic provinces have if unemployment in Canada's industrial heartland is increasing at a time when it should be rapidly declining? What chance do we in the Atlantic provinces have if the unemployment rate in the province of Ontario stands at 5 per cent during the month of August? The consequence of that 5 per cent rate of unemployment in the province of Ontario for the month of August is that in the Atlantic provinces we have almost 10 per cent unemployment.
That is a fact. The DBS figure for the Atlantic provinces is 9.4 per cent.
We have inflation because we have a double jeopardy here. We have rising unemployment and rising inflation. You cannot discuss one crisis without the other because they are both critical. What happens when we have high inflation? It takes its highest toll in the low income regions of the country which did not contribute to it in the first place. Inflation means real human suffering when we consider a shrinking dollar in an area of traditionally low employment and high unemployment in an area of high prices, an area plagued by transportation problems and geographical disadvantages. This government does not seem to appreciate or grasp the real suffering.
My own city of St. John's has a number of dubious distinctions. Hon. members can appreciate what this means there. That city has the highest per capita cost of living in the country and the lowest per capita income in the country. Couple this with the high rate of unemployment and you will realize what this means in terms of real human suffering. It means the difference between having beans on the table or not having beans on the table. Meat is out of the question. The present figures on the cost of living index released yesterday by Statistics Canada surely provide dramatic proof, if it is needed, that the government's policies to curb inflation have not worked. Not only do we have continuing, spiralling, runaway inflation, but we have spiralling unemployment at the same time.
Surely, the government must admit its mistake and proceed at once with a crash program to get Canadians back to work. It is as simple as that. If we did not have the present rate of inflation which, based on the July-August figures, represent an annual increase of 8.4 per cent and if we did not have the present rate of unemployment which, based on the August figures, stands at 6.5 per cent, perhaps we would have been able to weather the consequences of the present United States policy. If our economy had been in a healthy position, it would not have been necessary for us to have gone with our cap in hand to Washington plaintively begging for special consideration. The fact is that our economy has been weakened by the outmoded policies of this government.
Inflationary increases in costs are very serious. Everyone admits that. They are a very serious threat to our economy and can seriously cripple our economy. The government's obsession with their own blinker type strategy to fight inflation has deprived the economy of the vigour and vitality which could have been of so much value in helping us face up to the economic realities in the world today and the situation which we are in as a consequence of the present United States policy. As for inflation, this government has failed where it should have succeeded. As for unemployment, it succeeded where we all wish to God it had failed.
Another example of the economic brinkmanship in which this government seems to revel is the unpegging of the Canadian dollar and what that means to certain areas of the economy. In freeing the exchange rate and boosting the cost of our exports, this government has directly contributed to further unemployment. It certainly contributed to unemployment in my part of the country which, to a large extent, is dependent on exports of raw materials to

September 17, 1971
Income Tax Act
the United States. The government seems committed to adding one adverse economic policy to another. The sum total is a chain reaction which perpetuates and worsens the critical unemployment picture. The country has to suffer the consequences of these ill-conceived policies and nothing short of a drastic and immediate change in those policies will do anything to cure the situation. The story of this government has been a story of rising unemployment and increasing prices. This has been the hallmark of the government since it took office. It is a sad story, a story of unfulfilled expectations. In the midst of all this we are presented with a bill which would deceive the Canadian people, a measure presented as a tax reform package, which it is not. If it were passed, it would do little to strengthen the economy. The Economic Council indicates that the Canadian economy would have to grow at the rate of 51 per cent per year even to prevent existing unemployment from worsening. With the tight rein the government has been holding on the country in its effort to combat inflation, unemployment was bound to increase.
In July of this year we witnessed the commencement of a government advertising program designed to pass the buck psychologically. "Canada's economic future is very much in your hands; our economy depends on the private sector to create new wealth and employment". This is how one advertisement read. One economist wrote about this campaign:
The campaign would be comical if it were not so insidious, if it were not for this government's unadmirable tendency to solve hard-core economic and social problems with public relations dazzle.
Another advertisement read: "People are still the most important resource we have". I find this difficult to believe. I do not think the government is really convinced of it. The Prime Minister tells us we have to live with unemployment and describes the miseries of unemployment as an unfortunate side effect which cannot be avoided. The Prime Minister does not know what it means to be unemployed. Too few members of this House know what it means to be unemployed, the demoralizing effect on a human being, the wasted days, the impotence which is felt as this situation continues day after day.
An unemployed man finds himself surrounded by an affluent society which, through the medium of high-pressure advertising, would force down his throat messages about all the wonderful consumer goods he could enjoy- colour television and everything else. He cannot afford them, even on the never-never plan, because he is unemployed. Because he is unemployed he has no money, so he is frustrated. Society cannot find a place for him except as one of its wards and that is ultimately what he becomes. If he cannot find work he must fall back on the state. If he is fortunate enough to qualify for unemployment benefit at least he is able to maintain something of his dignity. Otherwise, all too often, he has to swallow his pride and go on welfare.
Does the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) know what this means? I do not think he does. I do not think anybody in this House really knows what it means. It is one of the real tragedies today that in this
(Mr. McGrath.]
blessed land of abundance we should deny the right to work to so many of our people. One has to be with them to come even close to understanding what it is all about. Oh yes, it is most appropriate that we should be talking about eliminating the middle or, more particularly, the low-income people from the tax rolls. We should be doing this now, not making provision for it to be done next year. It should be done right now as a crash program because this is essential if we are to make a dent in the unemployment figures and get the economy moving. I find it difficult to understand parts of the bill before the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired unless he gets unanimous consent to continue. Does the House give unanimous consent to the hon. member to continue his remarks?


An hon. Member:: Will his leader come back?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: There cannot be any condition. I will ask the question again. Does the House give unanimous consent to the hon. member to continue his remarks?


Mr. Francis:: With great pleasure.


James Aloysius McGrath: The clock will probably accomplish what some people would like to accomplish. The bill before the House is deceptive in that it does not accomplish what it proposes to do. More particularly, it does nothing to help overcome the critical situation we find in this country today as a consequence of the policies pursued by the government, and unless there is an immediate change in the philosophy of the government then the people of Canada are in for a dark, critical winter.


Mr. Gilbert:: May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, this tax measure, Bill C-259, is a sad ending to nine years of intensive and exhaustive study to build a tax framework in Canada which would bring about justice, equity and economic growth for all Canadians. The bill is a clear indication of the government's rejection of the Carter report and a cave-in by the government to the business community. It is striking to me that less than 10 per cent of Canadians can dominate the other 90 per cent through their wealth and power.
Back in 1962, when the Conservative government passed an order in council appointing Kenneth Carter to look into the tax framework of Canada, it gave him specific instructions that, among other questions, he should report upon the distribution of the burdens among taxpayers resulting from existing rates, exemptions, relief and allowances provided by the personal and corporation income taxes, and secondly, the effects of the tax system on employment, living standards, savings and investment,
September 17, 1971

industrial productivity, and economic stability and growth.
After spending almost three years and $3.5 million on that study, Mr. Carter reported in 1965, and I should like to summarize some of his main findings. Mr. Carter found, first, that the present taxation system does not afford fair taxation for all Canadians; second, that the present tax structure has led to Canadians being less well off through lack of goods and services that could be provided through more efficient use of labour, capital and natural resources; third, that compliance and collection costs have been needlessly raised by duplication in provincial and federal administrations and that federal tax administration is open to political influence; fourth, that the fiscal situation has not been used as effectively as it could be to maintain full employment, contain inflation and encourage Canadian ownership of Canadian industries; and fifth, that Canadian federal procedures to obtain and analyse new ideas about tax increases or for hearing the views of taxpayers are inadequate.
He summed up his report by saying that the commissioners were fully aware that their conclusions constituted severe criticisms of the present tax system, that they were not arrived at lightly nor the result of preconceived opinions. Whenever conflicts arose in their proposals they were reconciled in favour of equity. They were convinced that preserving and developing the system by scrupulously fair taxes must override all other objectives. In that report, not only was that recommendation made, but he categorized some of the special privileges which are afforded to the resource industries in our country, the insurance and finance companies, land speculators, and the free-loaders who play the stock market.
What did Mr. Carter recommend as a result of his exhaustive study? He said that two basic principles should operate in our tax structure. One is that there should be a fair distribution of the tax burden based on ability to pay and, secondly, that all income should be taxable. When he said that income should be taxable, he had in mind the income derived from stock options, gifts, income of all kinds whether it be strike pay, unemployment insurance, compensation, sickness and group life insurance, tax credits and consumer dividends, tax free allowances, profit sharing, gambling gains, bonuses, premiums paid by employers for employees under medical insurance schemes, non-cash benefits provided by employers and death benefits, because in the past these areas of income have avoided the full tax power.
He suggested, too, that there should be a redistribution of the tax burden so that wealthy individuals and companies would pay their fair share and that this would result in $523 million more in corporation taxes to the federal government in one year, $271 of which would come from foreign investors. He also recommended there should be generous tax credits for post secondary education; that there should be capital gains appended to income and property with an exemption of $25,000 in respect to an owner's home which was occupied; that there should be top limits on travelling and entertaining expenses; that there should be tax credits for children which would be substituted for present tax exemptions; that there should
______________________________7953
Income Tax Act
be-and this is very important-an integration of personal income taxes; that the efficiency concessions for industry should be abolished and that mining companies should only claim for exploration development concessions at accelerated rates.
This was a bold, courageous document set forth by a man who had given his life to the study of the tax structure in Canada. What did we find as a result of the Carter Report? We found an effective campaign against the report. There are some people who today still call Mr. Carter a socialist. This is far from the truth. We have some people who claim that the development of this country would be inhibited by the implementation of the Carter report and that personal initiative would be restricted. That criticism comes from less than 5 per cent of the communities. From the time I came down here in 1965 we were deluged with reports, not from ordinary folk but from the main sector of the business community concerning the disastrous effects which might occur if the Carter recommendations were put into effect. The Liberal party, having a close ear to the public and a far closer ear to the business community, set out to castrate the Carter Commission recommendations. They brought forth what is known as a white paper for purposes of discussion and played with that for some time before they came forth with a budget and tax changes in June of this year.
I recall quite clearly the month of June when the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) brought in his budget. I recall the reaction of the Liberal members. They were just as cocky as peacocks and quite boastfully said that they were prepared to fight an election at any time on these proposals. The Minister of Finance, in his Buddha-like performance, expanded himself and said that this is an expansionary budget which will create growth and full employment. That was in the month of June. Now, in the month of September we find a different picture. We find that the picture is somewhat shaded. We find that the cockiness is replaced by cautiousness and quietness. We find the smile off the face of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) as a result of the surtax imposed by his so-called friend, President Nixon, to the south. Everybody here remembers the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, as being a strong integration-ist, feeling that it was necessary to integrate the industry of Canada with that of our neighbour to the south. He rather smiled and gloated at the apparent success which was being achieved, but when the great master to the south came down with his heavy hand it made the minister realize just what a friend we had in time of need.
After going down to Washington with cap in hand and on bended knee-


Jean-Luc Pepin: I never wear a cap.


John Gilbert: -he now realizes the disastrous mistake he made in making Canada dependent on the United States in respect of exports. I recall the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) exhorting him on many occasions about the necessity to diversify and scatter our export programs so that we would not be caught in this terrible position. When the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce heard the report in respect of unemployment yesterday, and the rise in inflation, he must have realized that he and some of the other integrationists on that front

September 17, 1971
Income Tax Act
bench made a serious mistake in giving direction to the Canadian economy. I would hope he would see the light and take steps to meet the unemployment and export problems we face.
Bill C-259 is a classic example of the legal maxim problems we face, that equity varies with the length of the chancellor's foot. The maxim has now been changed to equity varies with the closeness of friendship to the Liberal party. Who are the friends of the Liberal party? Are they the old age pensioners?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.


John Gilbert: The answer is no. The Exemption of $650 for individuals aged 65 and over, replacing the exemption of $500 at age 70, does not begin to catch up with the increase in the cost of living. A short while ago the Economic Council of Canada indicated that a single person requires a minimum of $1,900 a year to meet the essential needs of the day. What has this generous government done with regard to old age pensioners? The very maximum of the old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement amounts to $1,620 for a single person. According to the Economic Council of Canada a married couple requires $3,200 a year and yet these people are being given $3,060 to meet the essential needs of the day.
This must be small comfort to people who have given their lives to build this country. I just heard a slight groan from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I wish he had been with me on Monday of this week when I attended at the home of an old age pensioner who had written to me asking if anything could be done in respect of rent control. I had the sad duty of telling her that rent control came under provincial jurisdiction rather than under federal jurisdiction. She pointed out that a few years ago she had rented a modest apartment for $78 a month, that this rent had been increased to $95 a month and that now it is $135 a month. I am sure the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce does not feel at all happy about imposing such a hardship on a person who has given her life and strength to build a better Canada. Are the working people the friends of the Liberal party?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.


John Gilbert: The answer is no. The basic exemption which increased from $1,000 to $1,500 for a single person and from $2,000 to $2,850 for a married couple does not begin to meet the demands of the day. On many occasions we have said that the exemption should now be $2,500 for a single person and $5,000 for a married couple. If these people had these exemptions maybe they would be able to get by. I think it is time the government realized just what it means for the average working couple to meet the requirements per day.
The employment expenses to workers at 3 per cent of employment up to $150 a year are just a government ploy to distract the workers from realizing the extent of the deductions given businessmen, their business expenses, dividend credits and other tax allowances on gifts and estates. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that the best experience that the Minister of Finance and probably the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce could have had

would have been to try to live on $30 a week which, the Minister of Finance boastfully stated, a single person could do. Then, they would realize that 20 per cent of all Canadians are experiencing desperation living, and at least 60 per cent of all Canadians are experiencing what is known as minimum living, merely getting by. I am sure the workers will realize that the meagre deductions that have been given to them in the form of the increase in tax exemptions and the abolition of the 3 per cent surcharge will have little effect, since some of them will have to pay income tax on employment insurance benefits, medical premiums paid by employers, and retraining allowances. The effect will be nil.
May I ask you, who are the real friends of the Liberal party? They are the businessmen who enjoy the tax benefits from capital gains, dividend income, the mining and petroleum income allowances. These are the real friends of the Liberal party. Let me give you an example. When a person pays tax on capital gain based on 50 per cent of that taxable capital gain at his own personal rate, it amounts to dividing the incomes of all Canadians into two classes; first, the income that people derive from labour and enterprise and, second, the income that people derive from capital gains. Let me give you a striking example, Mr. Speaker. If a worker has a taxable income of $3,000 from his job, he pays at the rate of 26 per cent. Yet, if a person has a taxable income of $3,000 which has been gained from a capital gain windfall, he pays half that amount or 13 per cent. This is neither right nor just.
With regard to the resource industries, there is little reform in the taxation of resources. Elimination of the 3 per cent tax exemptions on mining profits by 1974 will probably reduce the incentive to high-grade mining; in other words, mining by companies of richest ore to increase their highest profits for the first three non-taxable years. The inclusion of capital facilities, exploration and development costs as depreciable items, thereby allowing companies to deduct $4 from profits for every $3 spent, would leave these companies virtually in the same privileged position as they have experienced for the past 10 to 15 years. I recall vividly the dramatic example that the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) gave with regard to Elliot Mines. The uranium companies moved into Elliot Lake, raped the resources there in a very short time, paid little or no tax, created a community where many people bought homes, many of them through CMHC financing, and then picked up their profits and marched away leaving people in the community with no resource to develop and having large mortgages to meet. This is the tragedy of many of the mining companies that operate in Canada.
If we are going to give special consideration to the mining companies, it will not be long before the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Finance will hear cries from the pulp and paper companies asking for the same privilege that the mining companies enjoy.
I read a striking article in the Star a short while ago setting forth who receives the big government handouts. This was reported in the Toronto Daily Star. It reads:
Three hundred million dollars a year is what it costs the Canadian taxpayer to subsidize, the mining, oil and gas industry, according to a survey reported in the Toronto Daily Star.
September 17, 1971__________________COMMONS DEBATES_______________________________________7955
Income Tax Act
This subsidy has doubled in seven years since 1964 when it was $150 million.
The survey also shows that the money excused in federal taxes is in effect diverted to an industry which employs less than 10 per cent of the working population, and is predominantly owned by U.S. and other foreign investors.
The best-or worst-lobbyists for these subsidized industries are the provinces, especially Quebec, "eager for the economic growth and jobs they believe the resource industries bring".
Large corporations would pay a 50 per cent tax if they paid on all their net income, but in practice most companies get tax relief through depreciation and other allowances.
The mining, oil and gas industries get extra allowances.
In 1968, "42 companies which own metal mines reported a profit of $497 million on which they paid federal and provincial taxes of $45.4 million, or slightly more than 9 per cent".
The 145 companies in mineral fuel operations-mainly oil and gas wells-reported a profit of $340 million on which they paid federal and provincial taxes of only $40 million or 12 per cent.
The hardpressed printing and publishing industry paid federal and provincial taxes of $53 million, or 41 per cent, on net profits of $128 million.
The even harder pressed textiles and mill companies paid taxes of $37.7 million, or 47 per cent on profits of $79 million.
When it comes to the high taxes that the textile companies pay, surely the Minister of Industry, Trade and comedy-I mean Commerce-


Stanley Howard Knowles: You were right the first time.


John Gilbert: -should take up the cudgels for the textile industry. But no, he sits like a silent sphinx, smiles and does nothing. I think that if smiling could create jobs and lower taxes, all one would have to do would be to appoint the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to be our next minister of finance.because certainly he brings to his position nothing more, nothing less than a big smile.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Gilbert: What about the people who derive large dividend incomes? What about those people who receive these dividend income cheques? Just how does the Liberal Party treat them? No questions are put as to the source from which the money is derived. Was it earned or was it inherited? No, all they want to do is to increase that tax dividend credit from 20 per cent to 33 per cent. I am sure that those people who receive a dividend income are laughing all the way to the bank.
Have you ever seen the boardroom watchers in a stock-market office? These are the Jim Dandy's of society who appear at these brokerage offices at about 10.30 in the morning. They are dressed as though they had just stepped out of Esquire. From 10.30 until three o'clock in the afternoon they stand watching the board, gambling on the stocks. They use all the jargon-"The market is slightly off today; there is a slight dip; the Dow Jones isn't up today." These are the trademarks of these contributors to the community who sit in stockbrokers offices all day until three o'clock in the afternoon. And then they say, "Isn't it terrible that the workers don't work? Isn't terrible that the welfare people get such large amounts?" It is to these people that the Liberal party says, "We will give you a tax dividend credit which will increase from 20 per cent to 33 1/3 per cent."
What about the elimination of estate and gift taxes? Surely, their abolition will further stratify the Canadian people into an economic caste system. Many of us shrink and cringe when we think of the caste system in India, but surely we have the same system in Canada. When one reads "The Vertical Mosaic" one gets the full impact of the economic caste system in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Hon. members should allow the hon. member who has the floor to complete his remarks. It is very difficult for the Chair to hear the detailed remarks of the hon. member.


John Gilbert: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The question just crossed my mind while I was waiting for the pleasant boys on the other side to stop applauding: does the ever-smiling and happy Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce believe in the elimination of estate and gift taxes? I am sure he would have difficulty answering that question because, after all is said and done, he is a man of compassion, a man of kindness. I wonder if he really believes philosophically in the elimination of estate and gift taxes, and the impact this will have on the further stratification of Canadians in an economic caste system. What does he think about allowing a millionaire to pass on his money to a son, with the people of Canada having to pay the son interest on that money, and with the son not having to pay any taxes? I just cannot believe that the compassionate Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce would consent to that type of legislation. The government has reversed-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) knows that he can ask a question only if the hon. member who has the floor gives him leave to do so.

Does the hon. member for Broadview accept a question from the minister?


John Gilbert: Certainly.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you would kindly ask the hon. member for Broadview if he would be interested in knowing why I was smiling?


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, maybe the acoustics are at fault. I just did not catch what the minister said. I think he said something about smiling.


An hon. Member:: He wants to know why he was smiling.


John Gilbert: He wants to know why he was smiling? Mr. Speaker, Nero fiddled while Rome burned, and our Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce smiles while Canadians go down the drain.
The government has reversed the Carter Report recommendations by putting growth before equity and fairness. It has improved the tax position of 10 per cent and worsened the tax position of 90 per cent of all Canadians. It has put the production of private goods above public
Income Tax Act

September 17, 1971
goods and services, thereby ignoring our needs with respect to housing, schools, health facilities, transportation and the fight against pollution.
When I heard the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) speak yesterday of his fear concerning the rapid growth of Canada, and the possibility of inflation as a result of that growth, and when he cited as an example housing starts over the past eight or nine months, I could not help but think that he was far removed from the unemployed people, from people who have felt the effects of inflation and the pangs of hunger. He lives in an ivory tower.
What should we do? We should have followed the Carter recommendations as closely as possible, creating a tax structure which would be fair and equitable to all Canadians. We should have given tax relief to the majority of Canadians. We should be studying the guaranteed annual income plan. The figures given yesterday on the high rate of unemployment and the increase in the cost of living indicate that immediate attention must be given to tax relief and a guaranteed annual income.
In the past, governments have used the tax instrument to try to develop an equitable redistribution of income. It is obvious that that instrument has been a failure, particularly when we have 6.5 per cent of Canadians unemployed. Back in the early sixties, the thought of a guaranteed annual income was rejected by most people on the North American continent. But as we enter the seventies the thought of a guaranteed annual income becomes more appealing to a lot of Canadians. May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that at one of its recent conventions the Liberal party adopted the idea of a guaranteed annual income.


Mr. Haidasz:: Hear, hear!


John Gilbert: But may I also remind the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) that the Prime Minister scuppered the idea-


Stanley Haidasz: He did not.


John Gilbert: -and said it would cost too much. With excessive technological changes confronting us we will have to direct our minds to a guaranteed annual income, and the sooner we do so the better it will be for all Canadians.
The change from the work ethic, to the non-work ethic is very difficult for most Canadians to accept. The experience we have had with our welfare programs has not been a happy one because of the division created among the different groups within Canada. Apparently the conclusion has been reached that we must have a certain number of unemployed. The sooner we realize this, and the sooner we develop a guaranteed annual income, then the sooner a great deal of the agony, misery, apprehension and stigma attached to unemployment and welfare will be gone. I would hope that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce would use his influence not only to diversify our imports and exports, not only to try to clear up the resource industries and not only to make the tax structure more equitable, but also to develop a guaranteed annual income. We would be spending our time much better this way than by wondering about Bill C-259 which is retrograde and not worthy of support.


Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lambton-Kent):: In taking part in this discussion on Bill C-259, Mr. Speaker, one must ask on behalf of the Canadian people, is this bill tax reform? I had no idea that my remarks were that funny so soon, Mr. Speaker.


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


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I may repeat, we must ask ourselves the fundamental question that is in the minds of most Canadians, is this bill tax reform or does it just impose more taxes? Optimistically and charitably, one can say that it is tax reform; realistically, I am afraid that it may just impose an increase under a new guise. I have hoped for tax reform because hope springs eternal and naively, I presume, I had hoped for tax reductions. Above all, what I had hoped for, and I think I speak for a good many Canadians, was less government intervention in the business life of the country and in the private lives of the Canadian people.
As I understand developments in this country of ours, the history of taxation has inevitably been to climb progressively higher and higher. This is particularly true of the last 30 years since the adoption of a Keynesian socialistic philosophy by the government of the day under the late Mackenzie King. In fairness, I must say that this trend has never been arrested by successive governments. I would be the first to admit that this answer is too simple, but these are the fundamentals. We provide selective subsidies to industry and to people and couple them with specific government spending. This is our program versus a program which I would favour of genuine tax cuts providing incentives which would allow the people of Canada to make their own decisions. My criticism is chiefly of the philosophy of governments of all stripes, and the philosophy of some political parties, that seem to think they can spend your money and mine to better advantage than we can.
Free enterprisers have prophesied trouble for this country, but due to the great expansion period we went through, followed by an inflationary period, the day of reckoning was postponed. However, it is here now, precipitated by a lack of action by this government on economic matters. It was really brought to a head, however, by the action of President Richard Nixon. I have been a member of this chamber since 1963, Mr. Speaker. I think that most members who have been here during that period will agree that in this House we have spent more time on ways and means to extract money from the population than we have spent on ways and means to put money in their pockets. There was always the promise of more goodies for the people, more bread and circuses. The price has always been more taxes. From every corner of this House we are attempting to present the shortcomings of our existing tax structure. The government is beginning to admit what the population has known, that total taxes are too high. As things stand at present we have no particular co-ordination or linking of federal, municipal and provincial taxes. In other words, the same people are paying at all levels.
I was interested in an article which appeared in the Montreal Gazette on September 16, 1971. It bears out
September 17, 1971

something which I have been saying but puts it in much better language. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to read a short extract from this article:
Almost half the value of Canada's production of goods and services-46 per cent-is taxed into the treasuries of the federal, provincial and municipal governments. This includes the compulsory premiums paid for government hospital insurance plans and the Canada and Quebec pension plans, amounting to a total of nearly $4 billion a year. If these payments are excluded, total government revenues of $38.5 billion are equal to 42 per cent of the gross national product.
It's still far too high for a developing country whose most important single requirement is the investment capital for creation of new industry and the expansion and renovation of existing industry. In the United States, by contrast, the total tax take of the federal, state and municipal governments amounts to only 29 per cent of the gross national product. And the Americans have been fighting a war for almost a decade.
Governments are belatedly coming to realize they're overtaxing. None, however, shows any disposition to reduce their expenditures. Instead they offer selective forms of tax relief-development grants to industry or tax rebates to the aged and impoverished. They're all more or less infected with the conviction that they know better than the taxpayers how the taxpayers' money should be spent.
This is the real problem in Canada and the taxpayers themselves are as much to blame for it as governments. No government could spend as Canadian governments have spent, without the acquiescence of the voters. That acquiescence now, at long last, can no longer be assumed by governments.
A "by-product" of certain forms of aid to industry and to people of course is a loss of freedom. Invariably, when you are the recipient of largesse and you receive money, shall we say, for nothing, some freedom is lost. Some freedom involving the decision-making process is lost. This applies to businesses and to individuals.
So, Mr. Speaker, having taken a brief look at Bill C-259, which we shall shortly study clause by clause, I cannot find anything concrete that indicates to me that low income people will be removed from the tax rolls in the numbers claimed. I should like to paraphrase an expression used by a former member for Lambton-Kent, the late Hugh Mackenzie, because his words, when used to describe the numbers of people who allegedly are to be removed from the income tax rolls, fit the case perfectly. Mr. Mackenzie said, "The benefits appear more apparent than real". That, I think, applies in this case. May I continue in that regard.
Inflationary pressures, we must admit, are still present. I have nothing to say about that, except in passing. The latest civil service pay award granted this week was for a 19.5 increase over a three-year period. If that trend continues, it will mean that those employees will get a 60 per cent increase in income in ten years. My reading of the tax rates indicates to me that, although the income of those people and of other Canadians may go up by 60 per cent over 10 years, which is a normal rate at 6 per cent each year, income tax rates over that same period will go up by 97 per cent. This is not, I humbly submit, tax reform, but is what accountants call "elasticity". A 10 per cent increase in wages is accompanied by an 18 per cent increase in taxes. Accountants describe that, as I say, as elasticity. Also, elasticity means that as incomes rise, taxes rise at a faster rate.
Income Tax Act
Under the new tax bill, every 10 per cent increase in income is accompanied by an 18 per cent increase in taxes, as I said. Elasticity is best explained by looking at people with low incomes. A person earning $1,700 a year would, under the present system, claim exemptions of $1,100 and pay $70 tax on his taxable income of $600. If his income rises to $1,800, his taxable income is $700 and he pays $82 in taxes. His income has thus risen by 6 per cent but his taxes have increased by 17 per cent. So, despite all the statements and publicity to the effect that so many people will not be paying income tax, one must wonder if one can believe all those figures. Really, some of this stuff is not credible any more. For example, I recall when it was decided to remove the 3 per cent surcharge on income tax. There was great fanfare at the time, but what happened? The rate was later upped to 5 per cent. Certainly, we have increased exemptions for our lower paid people; at the same time we are taxing unemployment insurance payments.
I remember another classic example that makes me just a little suspicious of the fine print that may be in the bill. In 1968, I believe, a resolution came before the House for imposing estate taxes or succession duties on estates valued as little as $20,000. We had a great hassle in the House about this. I forget whether it was just prior to Easter or Christmas. At any rate, the minister of finance of the day agreed that the value of the estate ought to be $50,000 rather than $20,000 for succession duty purposes. This was a big deal. When the regulations came forward we found that although estates of $50,000 and less were exempt, if the estate was valued at $50,001 the rate reverted back, for taxation purposes, to the $20,000 level.
We had an important debate last night. It was alleged that the law of this land was being circumvented by the executive. So, I ask, is it any wonder that Canadians are suspicious of a bill that is this thick-it is five or six inches thick-and that has been prepared by this government. Really, we have been "sucked in" too many times already.
The taxpayer's home is not subject to capital gains. Is that so? That is what the newspapers say and what government press releases say. Yet the fine print of the bill shows that that suggestion is not always correct. We will talk more about that when we study the bill clause by clause. What about the family farm, Mr. Speaker? Canadians have been lulled to sleep by publicity indicating that the family farm is not to be subject to a capital gains tax. I have news for them. If they read the bill they will see that is not always the case. But, Mr. Speaker, happy, happy days are here for you if you win a lottery or a car. You will not pay capital gains on that. But I put it to you, Sir, that your chances of winning a lottery are about the same as a taxpayer's chances of obtaining a tax reduction under this bill. The odds are about one to 499,000 or one to 1 million against you.
I am concerned about what has happened to Canada and to Canadians. I submit that our initiative has been eroded by progressively more oppressive taxes imposed on the independent businessmen and the willing workers of this country. I was interested in hearing an hon. member speak about the guaranteed annual wage. I do not know whether he is aware that the government, reportedly, is to spend $15 million on a study to find out whether the guaranteed annual wage will destroy initia-
7958

September 17, 1971
Income Tax Act
tive and the will to work. I will make a proposition here and now that will save the government $14 million, and I will not take four years before bringing back an answer. If the government gives me a cheque for $1 million, it can save the other $14 million and get its answer. I think I could give the government a definite answer to this question right now. As a matter of fact, I might even do it for nothing and save the government $15 million. I have had an increase in salary and am persuaded to do it for nothing.


An hon. Member:: Watch it, Mac.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: May I refer to the Gazette again:
-$15 million finding out whether a guaranteed annual income would cause the recipients to lose their "work drive".
Those are the words. There is another facet which concerns me. Governments have had more and more free labour provided by industry and individuals in this country than you can shake a stick at. The ordinary businessman is threatened by law if he does not fill in DBS reports-I should have said Statistics Canada because the name has been changed-unemployment insurance reports, manpower reports, Canada pension plan reports and income tax reports. Large companies have whole departments completing government forms, and small concerns must have specialists and auditors to complete compulsory governmental statistical reports. Why? So that the government can continue to play their paternalistic role. What is happening? Commerce is being hampered, business is being hamstrung. The poor individual Canadian has to pay for it through the increased cost of goods and services brought about by buckshee labour demanded by government departments. Search as I can, there is no indication in this legislation that there will be a diminution in this respect-not a bit.
In view of the technicalities uncovered in this document the Department of Labour should not have anybody with accounting expertise seeking employment. These people should never have to receive unemployment insurance because they will be the most demanded profession in the country. When the transport bill went through this chamber the minister responsible demonstrated a more flagrant approach: he got himself a job. But the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) is looking after his bookkeepers. There is no question about that, because they will be in demand. There is nothing wrong with bookkeepers, but why should every Canadian have to hire them? I do not know where it is going to end, but I submit we are close to the saturation point, the point of no return.
Welfare costs are escalating. Some say that welfare payments are high enough to destory initiative. I want to point out something to the minister. Last week the welfare officer in a municipality in my area was having a little difficulty with some of the municipal officials. He said he was going to quit his job, that it was not worth while, and he was going to apply for welfare. This is the welfare officer. He is going to quit his job. He is no longer going to work as the welfare officer but will apply for welfare himself.
How does one react to being a second-class citizen in his own country? I shall relate an experience I had a week

ago Friday. I drove into a place on Highway No. 7 which had cedar posts for sale. My son needs some cedar posts for his farm. I asked the man if he sold cedar posts. He replied yes and asked where I lived. When I told him I lived in Chatham, Ontario, he said he was sorry but he would not sell me any posts. When I said, "Come again?" he said it was not worth his while. When I asked what he meant, he replied, "If you think for one minute that I am going to keep a double set of books, a duplicate set of records and a trust account so that I can pay the federal government a building tax of 12 per cent on those posts because I am selling them to you, you are crazy; and I have to repeat that again by keeping the same thing in duplicate in paying the province of Ontario 5 per cent sales tax. Why in hell should I do that when I can sell all my posts in the state of New York and I do not have to do any of this damn government bookkeeping?" Because I am a Canadian I could not buy the posts. How do you like that? We are spending $15 million to find out if anything is going to reduce our work effort.
Throughout my remarks I have tried to be charitable, but I must come to the conclusion that the benefits of tax reform will be wiped out unless public spending is confined to the natural growth of tax revenues. There is no evidence that the total tax burden carried by the individual has been considered in the development of this plan. Nor has any attention been paid to the necessity of developing a co-ordinated federal-provincial-municipal tax structure. Rather, an examination of this legislation can only lead to the conclusion that it is concerned solely with taxes levied by the federal government to raise money to meet the needs of the spending programs of the government, with no regard for the position in the total tax picture of the provinces and municipalities.
As I mentioned earlier, we had some pretty severe estate and gift taxes applied in 1968. In 1972 they are to be completely abandoned. This may be desirable, but it places some Canadians in a pretty invidious position, depending where they live. I expect to hear the classic answer-"Let the provinces look after themselves".
That is the crux of my remarks, Mr. Speaker. We are looking at this situation as a monolithic structure-federal government versus provincial government versus municipal government. This is wrong. After all, what are they? Governments are not impersonal structures; governments are people, and it is about time we started to think about the people. This measure is not reform; it is balkanization of this country. I suppose it could be called an extension of the chicken-and-egg war.
If we are to have reform, Mr. Speaker, all types of taxes must be considered, particularly the major ones such as property, sales and income taxes. A mechanism to provide offsetting credit relief from property, sales and excise taxes, etc., would be a good system to adopt. This method could be used when assessing income tax liability. Tax credits could also be an effective vehicle to give tax relief to the 21 million Canadians who are too poor to pay income tax. They will not be removed from the income tax rolls; they have never been on them. This area has been completely overlooked. Because a citizen does not pay income tax it does not necessarily follow that he does not need relief from taxes.
September 17, 1971

I say in all sincerity that this is a national problem and so long as it remains with us the goal of real reform will not be realized. I am speaking of the need to link up and control federal, provincial and municipal tax burdens while developing a coherent, over-all package of tax and social security measures.
It is very difficult to comment on this measure without criticizing, and it is not my intention to be overcritical because I believe much that is good is contained in the legislation, at least as far as I am able to understand it. What frightens me is that some people may think, perhaps due to the size and incomprehensible nature of this document, that we can put a label on it such as "national tax reform" and then say our troubles are over. If we cannot develop a new tax structure which distributes total tax burdens fairly-and this means the taxation imposed by all three levels of government-if we cannot relate our tax system to our social security policies, and if our taxation system does not permit and reinforce broad national objectives such as increased Canadian participation in economic development and support of all kinds for activities on an international basis, I do not think we should delude ourselves by talking about national tax reform.
In conclusion, above all let us try to get in this country a scheme to foster incentive among the people. The people are better qualified to carry out their own decision-making than government bureaucracy. Let us try, when we study this bill, to maximize free choice for the individual.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, my intervention in this debate will be very brief. It seems to me that the amendment before us fails to concern itself with the main purpose of the bill, which is for tax reform. I remind hon. members of the long story of tax reform in Canada going back over ten years. It started with the appointment of the Carter commission by the then government, now the official opposition. The report of that commission in 1966 was in many ways a textbook document, revolutionary in its concepts and thorough-going in the way in which it applied those concepts-a model, in many ways, of the kind of tax system which might exist in a Utopian society.
The Canadian public and business community then had a considerable period in which to consider and discuss those proposals. The white paper of 1969 was an expression of what the government felt possible to achieve and in the most democratic way for any country to achieve tax reform, the government put forward its proposals and invited the people to say what they thought about them. Two committees, one in this House and one in the other place, sat for most of 1970 hearing from individuals and groups concerned, seeking the very best of what could be offered by way of improvement to the white paper proposals. Now we have the bill before us.
The business community of Canada, those who are trying to make plans, not only for themselves but for those who are to follow them, have the right to know what the results are to be for a reasonable period ahead, say ten years. I see that the hon. member on the other side is snickering, but it is a reasonable expectation and it is an objective which is before us in this bill. There is no knowing what future parliaments and governments may do or
24319-15J
Income Tax Act
what their monetary requirements may be. But in this bill there are certain provisions to make sure that the total demands of the government will not increase over a period of time. For instance, there are the provisions related to marginal rates of corporation tax which will go down from 50 per cent in 1972 to 46 per cent in 1976. The marginal rate on personal income tax will decrease from 17 per cent to 6 per cent.
The purpose of such provisions is to give an assurance that the intention of the government is not to increase the total amount of taxation but to implement tax reform. If a future parliament were to decide it needed more money it would have to amend the act, argue its case and obtain the support of parliament itself. I am not an expert on democratic procedures but I do not know any other way in which one could do more to ensure that those affected by tax measures have every opportunity to make their point of view clear.
This bill, which was introduced in June, was left over the summer recess for tax experts to study. I hope the House will quickly give second reading to the measure so that we can get to the clause by clause analysis. All of us recognize that in a bill as voluminous and as complicated as this one a number of amendments will be offered. I am sure they will be considered. I have read some of the speeches of my hon. friends on this side of the House and I wish to associate myself with the remarks of my friend the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) respecting the taxation of co-operatives. The subject is a complex one but I think there is merit in the argument which he used.
The way to deal with this legislation is not to go on discussing subjects more appropriate in a budget debate or the debate which took place last week relating to the United States surtax and its effect on Canada, the need to stimulate the economy and to do something to encourage regional development. It is true that all these things are affected by taxation, but the basic objective of the legislation before us is to set ground rules for a period of time during which the business community may have confidence in the arrangements we can reach-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Whether they are good, bad or indifferent!


Cyril Lloyd Francis: It is our task to make them as good as they can be. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), the financial critic of the opposition for whom I have the greatest respect, says, "Whether they are good, bad or indifferent." I look forward to hearing his contribution when we reach committee of the whole. I know his contribution will be very lengthy. We are all looking forward to it. We simply ask: Why not get on with the business? What is the purpose now of putting on record speeches which are more appropriate to other debates?
I cannot help but express regret at the errors which repeatedly are put forward in some quarters. I am not a tax expert, I am not an authority on the details of this bill, but I could not help regretting that the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) who has just spoken should have discussed the abolition of the estate tax without in any way linking it with the capital gains tax. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mahoney) pointed out, the capital gains tax has to be

September 17, 1971
Income Tax Act
related to the estate tax. He called it a pay-as-you-go estate tax.
There is no way in which, in all honesty, one can pick out one aspect of the bill, ignore others and then make the demagogic announcement that this is something that will help the rich people.


Mr. Peddle:: It would take a long speech to cover every aspect of the bill's 707 pages.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: There is no question of that. I invite hon. members at this time, in all sincerity, to restrict themselves to reasonable comment. The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) keeps talking about the dividend credit as though the increase from 20 per cent to 33.33 per cent is giving something to rich people only. What he fails to add is that the tax credit itself is taxable and that there is a breaking point at 40 per cent on marginal tax rates. If you are on the 40 per cent rate or better, you will be worse off under these proposals than you are under the previous law. But the hon. member for Winnipeg North never tells us that story. He goes on to claim that this is a straight giveaway to the rich. I suggest that when members who should know better insist in making that kind of error, understanding in this House is not helped.
The measure before us is one of long term tax reform. The business community has been asking for this. Many decisions in this country rest on a knowledge of what our tax rules are going to be. The least of our obligations now, after ten years of keeping the entire picture as confused as we could, is to come back to this House, agree on these rules, have a clause by clause analysis of this measure and give the business community and individual taxpayers in Canada an assurance that Parliament has acted in the most democratic way it can to formulate the general rules of our taxation system.


Charles Humbert Thomas: Mr. Speaker, the initiative of my colleague from Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) in proposing this amendment has served once again as a vehicle for showing how empty and barren are the policies of this government. It has given us the opportunity to expose the government's true intentions, to cut through the fog of pretence and misinformation with which they are trying to delude the Canadian people into believing that the so-called tax reform bill is the be all and end all.
If any further proof of this approach by the government were necessary, it is amply demonstrated by the speech of the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) which we have just heard. Again, he is trying to build up a fog around this bill. He said the bill is the most important thing that has happened to the country. He completely obscures the fact that what the country needs now is something to get the economy moving again. This tax reform can wait. What we need now is something to get people back to work so that they can earn money to pay taxes.
Proof that the government's bluff has been called was very obvious from their dismayed reaction to Your Honour's decision to allow this amendment. When their
shock and dismay began to settle, their first reaction was to boycott this debate, to refuse to take part in the hope that the opposition might run out of steam. How else can one explain the complete silence of the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Kaplan), who had so much to say when the white paper was before the committee, or the silence of the hon. member for Etobicoke (Mr. Gillespie), who issued so many press releases on his pet taxation theories? Why the sudden silence? Do these members now agree with proposals which only a few months ago they could not stomach, or have they been taken out of the line-up and told to sit quietly on the sidelines? If so, I wonder whether they are happy with their replacements.
Are these members satisfied that the only contributions by government members to this debate so far have been a few minor interventions by backbenchers? Are they satisfied with the contributions of these members who lashed out at the opposition in the manner of people obviously stung by valid criticism? About all that I could gather from their remarks was that the tax reform bill was the most wonderful legislation ever to come before this House and that the opposition was doing a great disservice by not letting it pass without debate so that all Canadians could begin to enjoy this benevolent government's largesse as of January 1. This implied that we were being very unfair to the millions of people who were to be given tax relief. Do these hon. members really believe their own remarks? Perhaps, as the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) said, the most charitable conclusion would be that the government has made such a mess of this bill that they themselves do not know anything about it.
Would they have us believe that this bill is going to cure all of Canada's economic ills, that it will bring relief to the half million or more Canadians who do not pay taxes anyway because they cannot get jobs in this "just" society? Would they have us believe that there is anything in this bill to encourage the private sector of the economy to expand and to provide new jobs for our rapidly growing work force? Do they really believe that increased taxes, disguised as tax reform, are the solution to the many ills of our economy? If they believe all this they are completely out of step with the economists, accountants, businessmen and almost every other Canadian who has repeatedly said there is nothing in this bill to cure the long-term problems of the Canadian economy. Perhaps they do believe all this-for is not the hallmark of a Liberal the unswerving belief that everybody is out of step but him?
After listening to government spokesmen in this debate I read with interest an editorial in that great mouthpiece of Liberalism, the Winnipeg Free Press, of September 14-the same day that Liberal spokesmen were telling us that everybody in Canada wanted us to rush the tax bill through the House. Obviously there had been no consultation between the Free Press and these members because this paper expressed views so contrary to those of our Liberal apologists that I should like to read them into the record. This editorial is captioned "The mists of autumn" and commences:
Through the autumn mist of politics Canada's primary economic need stands out as clearly as a mountain peak. It is, of course, capital investment to provide jobs for the fastest growing labour force in the western world. When something like $50,000, on aver-

September 17, 1971

Income Tax Act
age, must be invested to make one new job in modern industry, the nation's capital requirements are almost unlimited.
The writer goes on to say:
The chief immediate barrier to investment for the time being is the worldwide uncertainty caused by the new economic policies of the United States. But uncertainty existed in Canada long before President Nixon launched these policies and will continue to exist, however they turn out in success or failure, unless the Canadian government changes its ambiguous attitude toward business.
Of such a change there is no current sign. On the contrary, the government has aggravated the uncertainty by pressing ahead with a taxation program quite incomprehensible to parliament or public and adding to it a competition act still less understood. In literal fact the tax bill, chopped and changed through countless revisions, baffles the ordinary businessman and, in many tangled clauses, bewilders the most experienced auditors and lawyers. Parliament will need months-
These are not my words; they are the words of the writer of this article.
-to study its obscure and often inscrutable language and then will not foresee its full effects on the national economy.
Does that sound as though we of the official opposition are the only ones who say that this tax bill should not be rushed through the House? The editorial continues:
The government could not have chosen a worse time to introduce this climate of doubt about the future. It appears when all the government's efforts to solve, the twin dilemma of unemployment and inflation have failed, when the world economy is facing a bitter moment of truth after years of unreality, when Canada suddenly finds that all its hopeful expectations are more excessive than they looked even a month ago.
How, then, could the government clarify this confusion and encourage the investment which alone will ensure adequate economic growth?
Here is where the writer parts company once again from the government. He continues:
It could abandon, or at least postpone until the international crisis has passed, the whole bungled attempt to build a new tax system on social theories regardless of economic results.
If that is not an endorsement of the validity of the amendment of my colleague, I do not know what is. That last statement describes perfectly this government's inept economic policies, its ad hoc approach to voter appeal rather than the national interest, and its patchwork attempt to paper-over problems rather than look for cures to a sick economy. This approach has never been more evident than under this government. It has been well said that the Trudeau government is more concerned with style than substance.
This government boasts about all legislation it has put through. Let us analyse it. We have had legislation to promote bilingualism and to change the rules of Parliament. We have had legislation to change labour relations laws and to alter the Criminal Code. But we have not had one piece of legislation to promote the economic growth of this country. The approach of this government continues to be a "big brother" one of taking the taxpayer's money and spending it for him.
Despite the Bonaventure fiasco, the Arts Centre mess and the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on reports now gathering dust in various minister's offices, they are still trying to "con" the Canadian taxpayer and convince him he should gladly spend his hard-earned income and
let them squander it in their own inimitable fashion. I suggest that the Canadian taxpayer is becoming just a bit fed up with the action of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). Sure, the taxpayer wants tax reform, but he also wants expenditure reform. He wants equity in the tax system. But he also wants the government to leave him some encouragement to work harder and develop this growing country.
My colleague from Lambton-Kent (Mr. McCutcheon) referred to an article in the Montreal Gazette which emphasizes the growing trend of government to take a bigger and bigger bite out of the gross national product. He pointed out the fact that taxpayers are beginning to question the wisdom of turning over so much of their money and letting the government make all the decisions. He mentioned the $15 million which apparently is being granted for another study to decide whether a guaranteed annual income would cause the recipients to lose all their drive.
I wonder how many members on the government side are receiving letters from their constituents angrily denouncing the $500,000 spent on the Secretary of State's latest boondoggle, the report of the Committee on Youth. I know my desk is beginning to fill up with letters which are extremely critical of this latest misuse of the taxpayers' money. As this article in the Montreal Gazette pointed out, resentment is beginning to build up among the taxpayers and they feel that they cannot and will not continue to let the government make all the decisions concerning how their dollar should be spent. The pendulum is beginning to swing back from the extremes of paternalism-personal and corporate-through which it was taken in the sixties.
Canadians are re-learning that the best security they can have is the security of employment. That security is increasingly denied them when the means of employment are taxed as heavily as they are now. This government's paternalism and political opportunism have clouded all its legislation. When the Canadian people wanted jobs and wanted the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to do something about it, he instead gave them new unemployment insurance regulations at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars to the taxpayers. Even the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) has not been able to come up with any accurate estimate of how much more money this will take away from the private sector of the economy.
We in this party who served on the labour committee while this legislation was being examined over and over again expressed the view that while we were certainly agreed that the needy unemployed must be looked after, we were very concerned that the minister's proposals were too rich for our economy's blood. We feared that this extra bite would lead to a further slowdown in the economy, which would lead to more unemployed, which would mean heavier drains on the fund and eventually would mean higher insurance premiums. Despite all the minister's assurances that the fund is actuarially sound, we still doubt the soundness of his approach.
Would it not have been far better to do something to stimulate the economy in order to provide more jobs which would take people off the unemployment rolls and eventually lead to lower drains on the industry and individual? But not this government! There was more

September 17, 1971
7962___________________________________
Income Tax Act
political clout, or so they felt, in saying to people-I think the Minister of Labour used these words, in effect, in the House one day in reply to a question-that they are sorry they are unemployed but that really does not matter too much because they are to be given more when they are out of work. This is the attitude of the government.
The recently announced program of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) in respect of family allowances carries on the established approach of this government. Dressing it up as a step in the redistribution of income and more assistance to the needy, he tries to justify the additional expenditure of some $150 million. This new tax will further decrease the ability of the Canadian economy to expand and create newer and better jobs so that less government assistance will be necessary. On September 15 the Ottawa Journal, in commenting on the new family allowances proposal, had this to say:
The real challenge is to provide greater opportunities for more Canadians to prosper in their own land. The very need for larger family allowances and the growth of the unemployment rolls show how far that challenge is from being met.
Mr. Speaker, the most damning indictment of this government's approach to economic matters is the disgraceful way in which it is trying to sell the Canadian people the idea that this bill will take from the rich and give to the poor. Over and over again we have heard the Minister of Finance and his colleagues hale this measure as one which will bring great tax relief to millions of Canadians. They have told us that if we will let these proposals rush through the House some 750,000 Canadians will be removed from the income tax rolls. They have also told us that 1.4 million Canadians will pay less taxes and that, in effect, the only ones to feel the bite of the new proposals will be the wealthy. They have tried to blackmail us into rushing these proposals through the House with the veiled threat that we are in danger of losing the support of the millions of voters about whom a benevolent government is concerned. What utter nonsense!
Why do government members continue to insult the intelligence of the Canadian voter? Do they think the voters really believe that tax relief in the form of increased exemptions or tax credits can only be granted if this bill is passed in its entirety? Do they not realize that the Canadian taxpayer knows that if this government were sincere in its intentions to bring tax relief it has other measures available to it to take immediate action to remove low-income people from the tax rolls?
The Leader of the Official Opposition has repeatedly asked the government to take steps to grant immediate relief to the low-income earner and has pointed out to them that our party would not block such attempts. We agree that the low-income earner should have tax relief, but we will not agree that this can only be bought at the expense of complicated and, indeed, antiquated tax legislation which could well cripple our whole economy. If the government is sincere in their desire to grant relief to these people, let them take the measures that are already available to them.
The Minister of Finance keeps telling us about the tax cuts contained in his legislation. But are these tax cuts
(Mr. Thomas (Moncton).]
real or imaginary? The minister, during his budget speech, made the claim that all married taxpayers will pay less tax in 1972 than they do at present if their entire income is derived from wages or salaries. This is not so. Once again the minister is overlooking other government levies which, no matter how the government tries to disguise them, are still taxes. In his typical fashion the minister will not admit that payments made to social welfare programs, no matter what they are called, are still a tax on income. But the new legislation broadens the concept of income to include, for example, employer-paid medicare premiums.
If we consider the increased levies for unemployment insurance premiums and the fact that the act has been broadened to include people who did not pay before, we will find in most cases that under the new legislation the minister's claim is not correct. For example, the new unemployment insurance regulations will bring more than a million new subscribers into its net. All these people not have been covered under previous regulations and so have not been paying insurance premiums. While it is true that they will not pay on their total income but only on the first $7,800, they will still have to pay approximately $62 a year for the privilege of joining this scheme, although they will be allowed to deduct this amount from their taxable income.
These premiums are not literally a tax, but effectively that is what, they are. They constitute an enforced contribution to an insurance fund from which the contributor may or may not ever receive benefits and to which he has not seen fit to contribute of his own volition. If that is not the definition of "tax," it will do until a better one comes along. Similarly, many people contribute to an employer-employee medical scheme and until now their contributions have not been taxable. Under the new concept of income in this bill the employer's share of the premium will have to be shown in the employee's income. It has been estimated that on average this will amount to about $75 a year on which the individual will have to pay tax.
The Minister of Finance has made much of the fact that under the increased exemptions the average taxpayer's base income will be reduced, but he continually glosses over the fact that because of new increased basic tax rates much of the tax benefit disappears. He has told us that the rate increases are not large enough to completely offset savings which would result under the new reduced taxable income. In theory this is correct but it ignores other provisions of the tax reforms which have changed the concept of total income. The examples I have given in respect of medicare premiums and unemployment insurance premiums are a good indication of what I am referring to.
While I know that the government has some weird idea that there is a distinction between a federal taxpayer and a provincial taxpayer, and that moneys paid by an individual to finance the many social welfare schemes of this government are not properly taxes, I think the average taxpayer would be quite prepared to argue that, the Minister of Finance's opinions to the contrary, all these additional levies are nothing but additional taxes and must be considered in the over-all tax structure. So we see that the minister's claim that all married taxpayers will
September 17, 1971

pay less tax in 1972 if their income is derived from wages or salaries is not quite correct.
The minister would also have us believe that his new tax proposals will bring relief to all people in the lower-income bracket and, even though middle-income wage earners might pay slightly more, this cannot be helped, and since it represents only a small section of the population it is not too serious. But what he does not tell us is that with Canada's rate of inflation, which often runs as high as 6 per cent a year and rarely is below 3 per cent, many wage earners who once were considered in the low-income bracket are rapidly moving into the $8,000 to $15,000 range and this is the area where these tax proposals will have the most impact.
With inflation and with higher wage settlements of the last few years, many people who once were considered low-income have moved into the income bracket which was once considered the exclusive property of executives and white-collar people. Consider, for example, the recent wage settlements with electricians, with plumbers, with bulldozer operators in Toronto and many others, wage settlements which have given these people incomes which once were considered only the prerogative of executives. These people will feel the heaviest impact of the new tax proposals. They will not begin to realize that although they have moved into a higher tax bracket they will have no increase in their real income.
Our income tax structure is geared to bring in ever-increasing revenues as incomes rise, and in fact as incomes rise taxes rise at a faster rate. Under the new tax bill starting at the lower end of the scale-I realize that there are many factors to be considered in different incomes-every 10 per cent increase in income is accompanied by an 18 per cent increase in tax, and as an individual's income rises he moves into a higher bracket and many more people also move into this income bracket, thus paying a higher tax. The result is a rapid progression of revenue accruing to the federal government.
I make this assertion despite all the statements of the Minister of Finance who would have us believe that the government will not take more money in taxes than they are at present. But what the minister is not telling the Canadian people is that at the higher end of the income scale this elasticity is much less pronounced. For example, for someone earning over $25,000 a year an increase of 6 per cent in his income would result in only an 8 per cent increase in his taxes. Does this sound like robbing the rich to give to the poor? The minister's hypocrisy in promoting this legislation as a system of tax relief to lower-income earners must be exposed for what it is. That is why our party has moved this amendment and why we are not prepared to let the bill pass until the Canadian public is made aware of the real intentions of the government.
Let me turn briefly to a matter which has been referred to by several members during this debate. I refer to the implications of the new tax provisions as they apply to co-operatives and credit unions. I will not go into the background of the co-operative movement because it has already been referred to by other speakers. I commend the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) on his plea for the co-ops, but I hope that if satisfactory amend-
_______________________________7963
Income Tax Act
ments are not allowed by the government he will back up his verbal position by casting his vote against this bill.
I do not want to get into the argument that has raged for years as to whether or not co-operatives have been paying their fair share of taxes, other than to say that I am convinced that when we consider the nature of the services that co-operatives render to many communities in our country we realize they have been carrying their fair share of the load. Coming from the Maritimes, I can well remember the hungry thirties when many of our people had a very hard time to exist. Had it not been for the birth of the co-operative movement at that time many of our farmers and fishermen would have been in dire straits. When I think back to those days and consider the services that the co-ops and the credit unions provided for our people-services, incidentally, which private capital was unwilling or unable to provide-I am deeply disturbed at any proposal which might force these valuable institutions out of existence.
Along with other hon. members I have listened to representations from the co-operatives and from those who feel that the co-operatives should be paying more taxes. The co-operatives maintain that the proposed legislation is bad because it does not recognize the basic nature of their organizations. They also feel that the application of the regulations is not realistic and could lead to the elimination of co-ops which presently are operated at a loss but only because they provide service to their customers. I cannot imagine private entrepreneurs being willing to provide these services on the same basis. As I understand it, the estimated revenue accruing, if these proposals go into effect, is not large. It is certainly not large enough to risk the existence of many of these institutions. The requests of the co-ops do not seem unreasonable. I for one am prepared to support them and do whatever I can to have those clauses of the bill amended.
Speakers on the government side have taken the position that this amendment is frivolous and unnecessary. We also heard that from the speaker who preceded me. Members on the government side have said that we should dispose of it quickly and go on with second reading. If Bill C-259 contained anything that would contribute in any way to curing the ills of our economy, we on this side would be happy to give it speedy passage. But we will not be bulldozed into pushing through a bill which not only does nothing to solve our immediate problems but in fact may aggravate and intensify them.
This government has more urgent priorities than tax reform. Let the government grant immediate relief to low-income taxpayers by special legislation that would make increased exemptions effective now, rather than next year. Then let it set aside Bill C-259 and bring in a budget with effective, concrete measures to help this country recover from three years of Liberal mismanagement.
Surely the sorry figures on the state of the economy released yesterday by Statistics Canada must have got through even to the members on the other side of the House. Surely they must now realize that the policies, or lack of policies, of the government have been completely wrong. I do not want to go into the statistics in detail.
Income Tax Act

September 17, 1971
They have been referred to already. But I do want to point out to the House the dismal picture that these statistics paint of the condition of our economy.
All the economic indicators are pointing in the wrong direction. We have higher unemployment and higher prices, pushed on by rampaging inflation. We have a lower seasonally adjusted value of manufactured shipments and a lower volume of seasonally adjusted new orders. We have lower seasonally adjusted unfilled orders and higher seasonally adjusted inventory for our manufacturing industry.
It is obvious that these statistics demand immediate and drastic action by the government. They do not call for tax reform; they call for reform of the government's economic policies; they call for a policy of high employment for Canada, a policy that will provide a job for every Canadian who is willing and able to work. Confidence must be restored immediately.
For the past 18 months the leader of this party has implored the government to take effective measures to restore the health of the economy. These measures should include across-the-board personal income tax reductions on a sliding scale, with the greatest reductions for low and middle-income Canadians, instead of this camouflage the government is throwing out that it is reducing taxes-but it is not telling the people that taxes will be going up during the next two years.
There must be an elimination or substantial reduction of the federal tax on building materials. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) has referred to higher building starts-but what about the situation over the next three or four months when the money for the building program dries up? That is what the minister in charge of housing is worrying about. A new budget should include some sort of crash winter works program to make constructive use of our human resources. The government made a great play about the money it spent on summer employment. Let members of the government put their money where their mouths are, and do the same thing for unemployed people this winter.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, a conference should be held with the provinces with the object of providing more assistance to provinces and municipalities to take care of the ever-mounting welfare costs with which they will be faced this winter. Such a high-employment budget would lead to jobs being created for Canadians, increased efficiency of production and demand for goods and services, raising shipments, new orders, unfilled orders and stimulating the economy constructively. Business confidence would be restored and no longer would Canadians be paying so dearly for the government's failure to bring in policies which will cure unemployment and curb inflation. If the government is prepared to take such action, we in this party will give it our wholehearted support.


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I was interested to listen to the remarks of the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) in which he urged those on this side of the House to stop speaking in generalities, take this bill into committee of the whole and get down to the job of amending its clauses. He is forgetting that this bill could be objected to on two points, its specifics and its generalities, and it may be that on this side of the House there are

such fundamental differences in philosophies and assumptions with respect to what a tax system should be, both in its goals and objectives, that really there is nothing we can do but discuss it on second reading. There is no point in sitting down and talking about the specifics of a bill with which you do not agree.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Then just vote against it.


Douglas Charles Rowland: We intend to do that, but we have a duty to explain why. The Canadian public have a right to decide between the policies propounded by the government in its tax bill and the philosophy which those on this side of the House would like to see incorporated in a tax bill. That is why we are taking this course.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, notices of motions, private bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs of Bill C-40, an act to amend the Interest Act-Mr. Chappell.
Mr. D. Gordon Blair (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On behalf of the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Chappell) I would like to make a statement with reference to Bill C-40 which stands as item No. 2 on the order paper under public bills. The hon. member has authorized me to make the following statement on his behalf:
I ask the unanimous consent of the House to have order No. 2 under public bills discharged and my Bill C-40, an Act to amend the Interest Act, withdrawn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the hon. member. Is it agreed that consent should be given?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is so ordered.
Order discharged and bill withdrawn.



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READIUSTMENT ACT


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: that Bill C-44, to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
September 17, 1971

He said: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we had the usual Friday afternoon attendance in the House which is so somewhat like the summer congregation in church where the people present are the converted.
All hon. members who have studied this bill will be struck by its reasonableness and logic. This is the third time since 1968 that I have presented the bill. It has been debated on previous occasions, once when it was a notice of motion and again 18 or 20 months ago when it was a bill in the present form. I have come back to the charge because time is getting short with regard to any effective change to the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. A decennial census was held last June and preliminary figures on population should be available in May or June of 1974. Upon presentation of those figures the representation commissioner must begin acting on what was then known as Bill C-72 of 1964 and which appeared as chapter 31 in the Revised Statutes of 1964. What its appellation is in the Revised Statutes of 1970 I could not say, and it is quite immaterial.


Duncan Gordon Blair: To me, too.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: "To me too," says the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) and I rather expect he has read the bill. I should like to review what has happened and why I present this rather minor amendment. The representation commissioner will set up the electoral boundaries commission which will examine the situation in each province relative to each riding. It is directed to hold public hearings and to make a report. Under section 12 of the act the commission shall-
-prepare a report setting forth its recommendations concerning the division of that province into electoral districts and its recommendations concerning the description of the boundaries of each such district and the representation and name to be given thereto.
Section 13 of the act outlines the factors that each commission shall consider in determining the size of a constituency, its boundaries and in particular the quantum of derivation from the norm. As hon. members know, there is a tolerance of 25 per cent up or down from the quotient or the provincial norm. There are few members present in the House, but most on this side who attended the hearings of the provincial commissions in 1964 will remember that in many instances their recommendations were completely ignored. Many of the re-fashionings of the electoral map of this country were not carried out by the commissions but were the product of some group in Ottawa that played with maps and figures from the census figures. They seemed to have the most abysmal ignorance of any constituencies except those in the city of Ottawa where they might have been able to examine the lay-out.
I do not know where the commission for the province of Ontario started, but the residual portion must have been in southeastern Ontario. Without pointing the finger at any particular seats, my heart goes out to some members on the other side of this chamber who were left with what could be considered a fashioned abortion of districts-not as to the people but as to the disparate nature of the constituencies. Any relationship to the factors outlined in section 13(c) of the act were apparently totally ignored. I
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act
recall that in my province the chairman of the commission insisted that actual figures, totals, were the primary rule; in other words, as close an adherence as possible to the rule of one man, one vote. As to the other factors, they might be considered if they had an incidental application. There was, naturally, some elasticity in numbers.
In talking to members and noting the size of the objections ruled on by Mr. Speaker pursuant to section 20 of the act, one can readily understand that on the whole the job did not meet with the approval of Members of Parliament. This bill somehow had its origin in ideas of superpolitical purity. I do not know whether the idea that anything that a Member of Parliament touches must be tainted is prevalent in academic circles, or whether it is something buried in the dust of editorial offices. In my considerable experience as a Member of Parliament and the actual servicing of a constituency where one is dealing with the community which is, frankly, the political family related to a Member of Parliament, I can say unhesitatingly that no man understands how a constituency is put together as a workable representational unit better than the Member of Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There may be exceptions, but the man who has worked his constituency and attended to it knows its inner details. I live in Ottawa and occasionally I have been reproached by individuals who ask what I know about Edmonton and what goes on in my constituency. Mr. Speaker, I would wager that I know more about what goes on in that constituency and its perimeter than anyone who is bound by his particular neighbourhood and his own particular interests. Whether consciously or unconsciously, we all pay attention to details in respect of the whole area. We know the mix of the people; we know what interests they have.
My constituents are very fine people. Mine is an urban constituency, yet it covers two areas of the city of Edmonton, the western side on the north of the river and the far north-eastern side-and never the twain shall meet so far as having a community of interest is concerned. I do not say that everybody should be of the same income group in a community; I just point out that there is that particular mix.
I want, through my amendment, to make certain that when fashioning its report a commission gives reasons for its decision. I put it to hon. gentlemen that there is nothing worse than coming into this House and debating a report on the basis of objections when no reasons have been given for changes which have been made. In other words, under this act the representation commissions are simply given carte-blanche within certain perimeters to make the changes they wish. They can change the name of an hon. member's constituency and they do not have to say why; they can just sit back and the burden is entirely upon the one who objects.
It seems to me, now that we have adopted this system of a representation commissioner and the setting up of electoral boundaries under a so-called independent system- and it is not independent of certain prejudices, let me assure the House-that if changes are to be made in any
7966

September 17, 1971
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act
province the burden should lie on those who are to make the change or suggest the change. If the name of the constituency is to be changed, the commission should let the constituents know why this is being done. If boundaries are to be extended or contracted or altered, or if this parish or that part of a township is to be removed or added to another constituency, let it be said why that is being done; let it not be merely said that this is done simply on a population basis. What is the affinity-that is the question. Let the commission, to use popular parlance, put its reasons where its mouth is, because then, I can assure hon. members, there will be much less frustration.
In the last revision, that being the first revision under this act, there was not one province without a constituency where there was not complete frustration because the people did not know why a change was made. Why was something done this way or that? Let us have the reasons. I do not have much time, and I propose to give hon. members an opportunity to ask questions. We ask: Why was this done this way?
I will simply say that if there are objections they will be more cogent and, I think, more objective if they are directed toward reasons that are given. I think, too, that in other instances where the reasons appear reasonably sensible most hon. members will accept them and we will not have any objection. This amendment is trying to establish this communication, shall we say, between members of the House and the commission. Hon. members are very much in the picture since they are the ones who are affected.
It must be remembered that under the act hon. members cannot change the reports. That cannot be done in any way, there is no provision for changes under the act. Members of the House can only air their grievances and set up counter-reasons for their objections. Then the reports are referred back to the commissions along with the verbatim report of what was said by hon. members in regard to particular constituencies, and the commissioners will either reject, accept in part the objections or start the work afresh. At least an opportunity is given for Members of Parliament, who I think know more about their constituencies than anybody, to serve their people. Merely representing a constituency for the purposes of election is nonsense. What one has to look at is a constituency which can be properly serviced by a Member of Parliament. That means a lot. In the last revision that was the lowest reason on the totem pole.
I propose merely to amend the definition section of the act to provide that the report shall contain recommendations and that each recommendation can only be considered as a recommendation if there is appended to it the reason therefor. Therefore, any report would come in with recommendations and, naturally, with reasons. That is all. I hope that hon. members will see fit to approve the amendment of this act because a great deal of, shall we say, the future of their constituencies and their ability to serve them lies in determining that we have appropriately determined constituencies.


Duncan Gordon Blair: Mr. Speaker, may I have your permission to ask the hon. member a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I believe the hon. member has indicated that he will answer questions.


Duncan Gordon Blair: I wonder if the hon. member can tell us whether there is anything in the statute at present which prohibits or shall prohibit a commission from giving reasons for its report and for the division of a province into constituencies.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing that specifically prohibits that. I have the reports from the last distribution; all are before me and I would offer them to the hon. member in the hope that he might find one solitary, minor reason stated in the whole lot of them. There seems to be a uniformity of presentation. I will not attribute this to the actions of the representation commissioner who is a member of all the representation commissions. Let me assure the hon. member, however, that there is a rather rigid uniformity in presentation, and all without a single reason.
I know that when I spoke to a couple of the chairmen of provincial commissions and suggested that reasons would have been helpful, they simply said it was not necessary and "why should we bother our heads with it?"


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add a few words to the debate on Bill C-44, in the name of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). It refers to the electoral boundaries commissions and the reports they file with the Secretary of State. The hon. member suggests in his bill that these reports should give not only the boundaries of constituencies but reasons for establishing those boundaries and the way in which they are established.
It took many years, Mr. Speaker, for the Parliament of Canada to get around to developing an independent commission to fix electoral boundaries independent of Parliament and independent of politics. This was done in 1964. It was a great step forward. Prior to that time there were a tremendous number of complaints and criticisms about setting the boundaries to suit the political advantage of the government in power. The whole idea of an independent commission was to get away from this type of criticism.
The hon. member stated that we do not have a completely independent boundary set-up as a result of this commission. The arguments and complaints against this are now much fewer than in the past. By setting out the reasons for establishing boundaries the commission invites rebuttal from Members of Parliament. In effect, we established a continuing debate. It took many years to get this matter out of the hands of the government and into the hands of an independent commission. By this proposal we are bringing it back as though the commission is only a bargaining body, and inviting members of the House of Commons to rebut this. Obviously, the reasons which the commission will give will be those set out in section 13 of the act, which states the reasons for establishing the boundaries. I quote that section:
In preparing its report each commission for a province shall be governed by the following rules:
(a) the division of the province into electoral districts and the description of the boundaries thereof shall proceed on the basis that the population of each electoral district in the province as a result thereof shall correspond as nearly as may be to the electoral
September 17, 1971

quota for the province, that is to say, the quotient obtained by dividing the population of the province as ascertained by the census by the number of members of the House of Commons to be assigned to the province as calculated by the representation commissioner under section 12-
(c) the commission may depart from the strict application of rules (a) and (b) in any case where
(i)	special geographic considerations, including in particular the sparsity, density or relative rate of growth of population of various regions of the province, the accessibility of such regions or the size or shape thereof, appear to the commission to render such a departure necessary or desirable, or
(ii)	any special community or diversity of interests of the inhabitants of various regions of the province appears to the commission to render such a departure necessary or desirable,
but in no case, except as may be necessary in order to give effect to rule (b), shall the population of any electoral district in the province as a result thereof depart from the electoral quota for that province to a greater extent than twenty-five per cent more or twenty-five per cent less.
The reasons always fall into the category of the statements set out in section 13, which is the basis for representation. Members certainly have an opportunity to make their voices heard, because under section 17 of the act we have the system of public notice. It sets out that there shall be hearings. As a matter of fact, the commission must advertise in a newspaper in the area a proposed plan of redistribution to show the number of people and the areas they designate. If a member is not happy with the plans of the commission, the battle should be fought at the public hearing; they should make their voices heard in their own back yard, not in Parliament. If this is brought back to Parliament we may as well bring it back the whole way and do away with the independent commission which everyone agrees is a real step forward for democracy.
The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) said that in his opinion a terrible job was done. That is his opinion and he is entitled to it. In my constituency a map was prepared by the commission. It was duly advertised in the newspapers. The group in the constituency which did not feel this was a good electoral arrangement, that the community of interest had no geographical background and there were certain geographical disadvantages in the arrangement, made representations at the public hearing in the normal way. The commission saw fit to change the map and bring it more into line with what we historically had in that area for electoral boundaries. I feel that the system works very well. It certainly did in the Algoma federal riding in the 1966 redistribution of seats.
One problem facing constituencies in northern Ontario is the very large area which they attempt to encompass. This is because of section 12 of the act which sets out the way in which the number of members will be calculated in each province. It states that there shall be 261 members from the provinces and two from the territories. It provides special instances, like Prince Edward Island which will have a special number, which happens to be four, and provides that certain other criteria will be applied in respect of determining the number of members; for example, no province shall have less than 15 per cent fewer members than in the previous redistribution. There are other special arrangements.
24319-16)
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act
In provinces with very large, growing populations, such as Ontario, the members have to take in a much larger territory. For example, in 1966 I believe the median number of constituents in an Ontario riding was 65,000. It varied 25 per cent up or down from this figure, whereas in Prince Edward Island it was something like 25,000. I understand that when the 1971 census results are in, which will be the basis of the election after 1972, it will be somewhere around 87,000 with a flexibility of 25 per cent up or down.
The government has proposed Bill C-257 which would cover these circumstances, giving an additional number of members to provinces such as Prince Edward Island and Saskatchewan. The added representation would bring the number of members in the House of Commons to above the 263 or 264 we now have. This would certainly work to the advantage of provinces such as Ontario. It would be of special advantage in large northern constituencies of Ontario where there is a sparse population while southern parts of the province have a large and fast-growing population.
The hon. member for Edmonton West said no one was more qualified than a Member of Parliament to make representations concerning constituency boundaries. I tend to agree with him. However, I feel the place for him to make such representations, if he is not satisfied with what is proposed by the commission, would be at the public hearings. There, before a final decision is reached, he could put forward his case and bring people with him to support his views.
Section 20 of the act sets out the manner in which objections can be filed with representation commissioners. It reads as follows:
If within a period of thirty days from the day the copy of the report of any commission for a province is laid before the House of Commons or published pursuant to section 19, an objection in writing, in the form of a motion for consideration by the House of Commons of the matter of the objection, signed by not less than ten members of the House of Commons is filed with the Speaker specifying the provisions of the report objected to and the reasons for the objection, the House of Commons shall, within the first fifteen days next after the expiration of that period that the House of Commons is sitting, take up the motion and consider the matter of the objection, and thereafter the report shall be referred back to the representation commissioner by the Speaker, together with a copy of the objection and of the House of Commons debates with respect thereto, for reconsideration by the commission having regard to the objection.
The procedure to be followed is set out in clear terms. It seems to me that hon. members will know the reasoning of the commission and will be able to set forth their arguments right here in the House of Commons. In conclusion, I do not really see that the proposal before us would do much to prevent objections. There will always be differences of opinion. If an hon. member has already made his case at a public hearing before a decision has been reached, if he is unhappy about a name change, for instance, this can be dealt with in the House of Commons as has been done many times in the past. With regard to the boundaries themselves, we decided several years ago to set up an independent commission to take these things out of politics. I believe we should retain that system.

September 17, 1971
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act


Duncan Gordon Blair: Mr. Speaker, the most interesting discussion initiated in connection with the bill in the name of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) is one which engages the concern of all of us. The hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Foster) has referred to the major reform which took place in 1964 when the procedure for defining the boundaries of constituencies in Canada was taken out of politics. This reform had been long advocated by public-spirited and responsible citizens.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And long opposed in Parliament.


Duncan Gordon Blair: Yes. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) should know. It was long opposed in Parliament. I was about to say it was for a long time a principle to which political parties and politicians paid much lip service but it was always observable that they were much more concerned about the principle of the non-political definition of political boundaries when their parties were out of office than when they were in office.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We were consistent.


Duncan Gordon Blair: The hon. member's party is always out of office and, therefore, always consistent. In any event, this was a major change and I believe it was a change which none of us would wish to disturb. However, like all changes, it produces disturbance. I conclude from what the hon. member for Edmonton West has said, and perhaps from what others have said, that virtue does not always bring its own reward: it sometimes leads to pain and tribulation.
However, I am sure that in the country in general there will be disagreement with the proposition which was advanced by the hon. member for Edmonton West and supported at least in part by my hon. friend from Algoma, that is, that we in this Parliament, as Members of Parliament, are the best judges of the type of constituencies we should represent and the boundaries of those constituencies. I think we should adopt a much more modest posture and recognize that the people of this country in every way possible have made it clear that they do not think we are the best judges at all. Our judgments on these matters in the past have always been partisan, they have been coloured by considerations of political advantage and we should do nothing in this chamber to undermine the new system by preparing the way for any type of regression to the old system.
There was a dark undertone in some of the remarks of the hon. member for Edmonton West. He seemed to labour under the suspicion that the redistribution which took place under the new system was not free of political influence.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It certainly was not.


Duncan Gordon Blair: I do not know whether to be saddened by that charge or whether to be reassured. I might explain that statement by saying that at the time redistribution took place under the new system I was president of the Liberal Party in Ontario. When we first looked at the new electoral map in a serious way, a way which was not uncoloured

by consideration of what it did to our party, our first conclusion was that it must have been organized by those awful fellows in other parties.
I think the conclusion of everyone who seriously examined the new electoral map was that the commission had not done a very good job and that politically it would be of advantage to other parties. This is precisely why Parliament in its wisdom and with the support, I am sure, of the majority of the Canadian people decided that the determination of boundary lines should be entrusted to independent commissions. I submit that we in this Parliament, because of our close involvement with the political process, are not able to judge this question equitably and fairly. Because of our intense involvement in the political process we are simply not able to judge these matters objectively and fairly in the interests of all.
I asked a question of my hon. friend from Edmonton West when he was speaking. His proposal is that if the provincial commissioners who determine the boundaries were to give extended reasons for the boundaries that they describe, this would make it easier for Parliament to understand what they had done and also, quite obviously, easier for him to object to what they have done. First of all, I should like to suggest to hon. members that there is nothing in the words of the hon. member for Edmonton West either today or on at least two other occasions in this Parliament to indicate for a minute that he has been inhibited or hampered in any way from objecting to what happened to his seat because reasons were not given for the boundaries that were set. He has been eloquent in his complaints against what the commission in Alberta did. But he needs, of course, bigger porters to carry the message.
The hon. member has had his opportunity in this Parliament to object to the procedure, but what he is really objecting to is the result. I am sure that he is in the position of all of us who have argued cases in the courts. When we lose the battle it is sometimes hard to accept the decision, but it must be accepted. As my hon. friend from Algoma (Mr. Foster) pointed out, when these kinds of decisions are made, the proper course is to draw back and perhaps accept the fact that the tribunal which makes the decisions is better informed and instructed than those of us who have particular points of view to argue.
I have not been unduly harsh with my hon. friend from Edmonton West because I know he is not using this bill in any sense as a vehicle to accommodate some difficulties he has had in his constituency. He has used his constituency, and others in the province of Alberta that he knows well, as examples of the difficulties that have occurred under this new method of redistribution.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I want to eliminate incompetence and ignorance in these matters.


Stanley Howard Knowles: People who live in glass houses should be careful.


Duncan Gordon Blair: The difficulties that are bound to occur are obvious to all of us. There are certain practical factors that nobody can get around. The first is that there has to be a basic numerical unit of representation, because no
September 17, 1971

matter what we think, we must try to achieve the principle of one man, one vote. In view of the nature of this country, variations are called for. There is the well known tolerance of 25 per cent up or down on the electoral quotient. Because of the vastness of this country we also have problems of geography and the problem of connecting in one constituency areas with different traditions, different occupations, different attitudes.
These problems are inescapable. The only way we can avoid them is by greatly increasing the number of constituencies or by doing violence to the principle of one man, one vote. Clearly, there is a limit on the number of constituencies that can effectively be represented in this Parliament, and certainly no one would wish to incur the greater danger of not having some equality of representation in order to get over these other problems. There is no perfect solution, and probably never will be in our country, to this problem of forming constituencies that are consistent in terms of their interests and occupations and which at the same time bear some rough proportion to the electoral quotient and bring about equality of voters.
We have established procedures which should enable all of these various points of view to be given their full weight and full play. The statute provides that before electoral boundaries are determined by a commission, the commission must hold public hearings. This gives everybody in the province and in the constituency affected an opportunity to make their views known, including Members of Parliament and prospective Members of Parliament. It will include in the next year or so any member of this House who, on the basis of his experience, has profound and sensible observations to make on the decisions of the representation commissioners.
Added to that is the procedure which has been referred to at length both by the hon. member for Edmonton West and by the hon. member for Algoma, of having a formal discussion in this chamber of the effect of the redistribution proposed by the commissions. This gives Members of Parliament a specialized forum, an opportunity which other citizens do not possess, to register their objections to the decisions. I do not suggest that objection would be registered personally by every Member of Parliament because I am quite sure they would speak responsibly on behalf of substantial bodies of citizens. Again, the procedure provides that after debates of this kind in this House the representation commissioners are to review their decisions and make such changes as they deem necessary.
On top of all this procedure the hon. member for Edmonton West proposes one small addition. He says it would add to public understanding and facilitate debate if in their report the commissioners give detailed arguments for the decisions they have made. There is nothing that prevents them from doing that. It may be some of them feel that if they endeavour to write long and involved reasons for complicated decisions it would have no effect other than to stir up debate. On the other hand, it may be that some of them feel there is no need to offer explanations after a subject like this has been in the domain of public discussion. Perhaps some of them feel that in future there are special areas where a full explanation is required in order to bring about full understanding of what has been done.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act
Great responsibility and great discretion resides in these commissions. I doubt that they would be assisted with the results they achieved if they were forced to explain in detail and at length the decisions they have made. Personally, I am not persuaded that the hon. member's bill, if adopted, would add anything of substance to this total process. I think there are reasons to believe it might even complicate the process. I do not think a case has been made for a change of this magnitude, and if the bill were to come to a vote I would be disposed to vote against it and would urge others to do so.


Mr. Len Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the debate on Bill C-44 put forward by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). Being a neophyte in this chamber, I did not pay too much attention to the redistribution bill when its effects were first felt before the last election. At that time I was in the civil service and did not pay too much attention to such things. However, as a matter of principle I feel very strongly about this bill and the establishment of an independent commission to set the boundaries of electoral areas or constituencies in an objective and non-partisan manner.
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Edmonton West to the effect that such boundaries were not necessarily set in a non-partisan manner and that perhaps other influences came to bear when the boundaries were set. After looking at the bill, however, I find both merit and some disadvantage in the intentions of the hon. member in his amendment. As I have indicated, I support his desire to have the members of commissions give reasons for their decisions in respect of boundaries but I cannot support any suggestion that the independent actions of the commission be jeopardized. To undertake such action would be a backward step.
The removal of partisan considerations in the redrawing of electoral boundaries in favour of independent nonpartisan commissions was in my opinion a major step forward for democracy in this country. We are aware that debate in the House of Commons would of necessity add a partisan tinge to redistribution, and surely we do not wish this to happen. I gather from the remarks of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) and others that up to the last election there was much debate as to where boundaries should fall within constituencies. The hon. members had several advantages or disadvantages to consider. I suppose the greatest advantage sought by all was a political one because of the voting habits of the people in certain areas. Furthermore, the prospect of the House of Commons having to debate objections raised, however well-founded they may be, for each of the 264 electoral districts of Canada is staggering and, I venture to add, a waste of the time of Parliament.
Surely it is our duty to govern and take action on the important issues facing the nation. I for one do not believe a debate on particular electoral boundaries should consume time that Parliament could devote to the more important issues which face us now and which will face us in the future.

September 17, 1971
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is an example of the political purity I was talking about. It is great stuff.


Len Marchand: It is unfortunate that the commissions, at the time of the last redistribution under the act, did not have to provide their reasons for so doing, especially in relation to those boundaries which drew strong objections at the public hearings which were held. In my riding of Kamloops-Cariboo several decisions were made by the commission which appear to be against the sentiments expressed in section 13 (c) (i) and (ii) of the act. These subsections relate to special geographic considerations and community of interest.
In order to reach the northern sector of the Cariboo part of my riding I must travel through the communities of 100 Mile House and Williams Lake, both of which are part of the Coast-Chilcotin riding. I must do this to reach Quesnel. These three centres are on the Cariboo highway, but Quesnel is the most northerly. Even though Quesnel has a great deal in common with the rest of my riding, it makes little sense to have to travel through a large part of the constituency of Coast-Chilcotin. Using geographic
considerations, it would have been much more sensible to include Williams Lake and 100 Mile House in the Cariboo riding and have Quesnel attached to the Prince George-Peace River electoral district. I know there were objections raised by the community of Quesnel, the city council, the Chamber of Commerce and other citizens. They felt there was a very strong community of interest with Prince George and that they were not part of the Kamloops-Cariboo constituency. I am not making these remarks in any way to indicate that I am unhappy with having Quesnel as part of my riding. I have developed a great relationship with the people there. I know they have made a great contribution to the contribution I am able to make as a Member of Parliament.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private member's business has now expired. It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2 (1).
At five o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday. September 20, 1971