1971-11-30

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


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


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to lay on the table copies of a report entitled "Alaska Highway Traffic Study, Summer, 1971", in both languages.



AGRICULTURE


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House of approval for an assistance plan to help overcome the interim difficulties in marketing the Canbra or low erucic acid type rapeseed produced on some 400,000 acres last summer. A two-pronged approach will be taken. On the one hand, assistance will be provided to encourage the movement of Canbra rape-seed into commercial channels for both domestic crushing and export sales. On the other, measures will be taken to defray extra costs of assembling and holding for export purposes Canbra rapeseed that otherwise might be lost through mixing with regular rapeseed.
This action is being taken to smooth the transition of Canada's rapeseed production to the new varieties with low erucic acid content.
The conversion program which started in 1970 has progressed well and farmers now have ample seed of the new varieties for 1972 planting. However, the Canbra rapeseed produced for crushing has not moved rapidly enough for conversion purposes because of the large quantities of regular rapeseed in trade channels.
It is necessary to take this action to assure early use of the Canbra stocks. In this way we can provide that Canbra oil will be available to the food processing industry and conversion can move forward without disruption next year.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, if the government is doing anything in this regard we will be very happy as it will be the first time they have done anything to help rapeseed producers.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is not true.


Gerald William Baldwin: It was only under the administration of my right hon. friend from Prince Albert that steps were taken to bring rapeseed from a zero position under the former Liberal government to make it viable.
Apart from those few general comments, Mr. Speaker, I simply say we will watch these two prongs, how long they are and how sharp they are, and see what happens. The government has told us nothing and the minister has told us nothing. We will watch with interest to see what happens.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: You just do not understand.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, the minister has said that approval is being given to an assistance plan to overcome interim difficulties in marketing low erucic acid type rapeseed. He has not specifically said what will be done to accomplish that objective.
I am reasonably sure the minister knows what ought to be done. What the farmers of western Canada really want to know at this time is whether or not the emphasis next year should be on planting low erucic varieties or on the standard varieties they have been planting up to this time. Questions were asked in this regard at the outlook conference but were not answered. We were informed that the government was waiting for reports from commissions representative of government and industry that are currently overseas.
The difficulties in the marketing and in the crushing industry have stemmed from lack of clear direction and decision up to this time. They stem from a lack of clear acceptance of these varieties by the crushing industry in Canada and by those who are purchasing our rapeseed overseas. It is up to the Department of Agriculture and the food and drug people to come through with clear direction to the farmers as to where they are going in this very important crop.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We have.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: This has not been done. On that direction hangs a big piece of the farm income in western Canada. If you look at 100 million bushels you are looking at over $200 million in gross income, and the future of the rape-seed crop is hanging on this kind of decision.

November 30, 1971
Television Advertising
I have never been satisfied that the food and drug experts knew what they were talking about and I will say so in this House. An industry like this is too important to rest on decisions that hang fire for 18 months. I urge the minister to take an early stand on this matter, and I urge that clear direction be given to the rapeseed producers of western Canada.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, the statement which the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) has just made seems quite important, according to him. As for us, while reading it, we find it extremely vague, as it deals with assistance for the marketing of colza produced on 400,000 acres of land. Now, what we would like to know is whether the dealers or the producers are unable to produce or market the crop. As for us in eastern Canada, we maintain that the government must support the marketing of some western products and we must congratulate the minister in this regard.
After listening to this statement today, we do not know if the government wants to help the dealers or the producers. We should nevertheless congratulate the minister on his announcement. We ask him to be kind enough in the future to be clearer in his statements so that we know where we are in this House. We should then be better informed than we are now by this vague statement made by the minister.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Under Standing Order 43 I rise on an important matter of urgent and pressing necessity. With Christmas buying in full swing it is especially important that children be protected against the pressures of television advertising which frequently cause confusion between fact and fantasy and often cause children to bring pressure on their parents to buy unnecessary and unduly expensive foods and toys. I therefore wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the Secretary of State, through whom the CRTC reports to Parliament, take up with that body the desirability of imposing an immediate and complete ban on advertising on children's television programs for the remainder of 1971.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43. The motion requires unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 which provides that in cases of urgent and pressing necessity a motion may be moved if unanimous consent is given. The matter of urgent and pressing necessity arises out of the recent decisions of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to make grants to Union Carbide of Canada Limited and Aerovox Canada Limited to move part of their operations from the province of Ontario to elsewhere in Canada. Such grants are not only unfair to Ontario workers but detrimental to the regional development program itself-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that he cannot argue the case. The hon. member can have the floor at this time to indicate in brief terms the urgency of the matter, but the hon. member is now arguing the substance of the motion and to that extent his presentation is irregular. He should limit his speech at this time to the matter of urgency.


John Edward Broadbent: Given the undesirable situation to which I have just referred, I should like to move under the provisions of Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert):
That this matter be referred for immediate consideration to the Standing Committee on Regional Development.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 THE CANADIAN ECONOMY IMPLEMENTATION OF INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY TO PROVIDE JOBS

Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the pressing need revealed in the report of the Economic Council of Canada released yesterday for an industrial strategy to be implemented without delay in order to meet the large job-creation goals urgently required to avoid a continuation of unacceptable unemployment levels.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York South has given the Chair due notice of his intention to request leave to move the adjournment of the House in order to discuss

November 30, 1971

the suggested need for an industrial strategy in relation to the creation of jobs and the avoidance of unacceptable unemployment levels.
It may be that the report of the Economic Council raises a new element in relation to the question of unemployment, but it does appear to the Chair that in essence the hon. member proposes that we should entertain a renewed debate on the question of unemployment.
It seems to me that the question of current and future unemployment levels has been the subject of wide debate on numerous occasions in the present session. I need only draw the hon. gentleman's attention to the debate on the subject which took place under special circumstances in the sitting of October 14 last. A like debate also took place on the third and fourth of this month on a supply motion.
It is agreed by all hon. members, I am sure, that the question is a most serious one and is of national and urgent interest, and that the Economic Council's report is of national importance and interest. I am sure the House will have many opportunities to discuss these matters at length in the days and weeks ahead.
For these reasons the Chair does not feel that this motion meets the requirement of urgency of debate under the provisions of Standing Order 26.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether his government accepts the analysis contained in the report of the Economic Council of Canada published yesterday to the effect that a growth of about 61 per cent per annum will be necessary in the next three years to reduce unemployment in Canada to approximately 4 per cent? I assume the Prime Minister has not had time to personally study the report in depth, but in view of the importance of this question I also assume the Prime Minister has sought to see whether these forecasts are consistent with those of the government. Does the government accept this analysis and these forecasts made by the Economic Council?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is right in his assumption that I have seen the report but that we have not had a chance to look at it in any great depth. It was only made public yesterday. I believe one of the difficulties with the report is that it sets out goals and aims with which the government agrees but does not indicate in any precise way how they can be simultaneously attained. For instance, on the question of the Leader of the Opposition it would depend a little bit on the degree of inflation the Economic Council is prepared to recommend to go along with this particular objective.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the question I am interested in at the moment is quite apart from how one achieves this rate of growth or how one avoids an undesirable rate of inflation. Whatever the answers may be with regard to those problems, will the Prime Minister indicate whether or not the government accepts the analysis with regard to the amount of economic growth required in the next three years to reduce unemployment in Canada to approximately 4 per cent? Surely this is something the Prime Minister of Canada has immediately sought an answer for. Does that jibe or conflict? Is it consistent with the prediction of the government itself in its own analysis?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear the Leader of the Opposition say he does not care what happens to the rest of the economy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Come off it, Pierre.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition said, Mr. Speaker, and I believe it is an irresponsible position. I cannot answer one thing without the other.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I said no such thing.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: You said you were not concerned.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I did not say I was not concerned. Quite apart from the question of how the goals are reached and what measures one takes to offset unnecessary inflation, I asked whether or not the government accepted the prediction, the analysis, of the Economic Council as to the degree of economic growth necessary, and I will not stand here and have my remarks twisted-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -by a Prime Minister who has to resort to that kind of tactic to avoid answering questions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition might ask a supplementary question.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in view of the specific predictions and forecasts by the Economic Council of Canada with regard to the economic growth required, I ask the Prime Minister what the government's own goal is with regard to the rate of economic growth over the next year or two? What are the government's own goals specifically in light of these forecasts of the Economic Council of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, if we could afford like the Leader of the Opposition not to be concerned with the other aspects we would have a better goal than the Economic Council has put before us.

November 30, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



ECONOMIC COUNCIL FORECAST OF NEW JOBS REQUIRED TO REDUCE UNEMPLOYMENT TO 3.8 PER CENT- GOVERNMENT POSITION

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question similar to the one asked by the Leader of the Official Opposition but on another aspect. Can the Prime Minister inform the House whether the government agrees with the conclusion of the Economic Council of Canada in its recent report that our country will need an additional 1.4 million new jobs in the first half of the 1970's in order to bring unemployment down to the relatively high level of 3.8 per cent, and if the government does not agree with this estimate, what forecasts has the government with respect to the number of jobs required to meet the increase in the labour force?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We always took the position that the labour force was growing very rapidly indeed in Canada and that there would be a need to create a great number of new jobs. I cannot say whether the figure of 1.4 million is correct after having heard it for the first time yesterday.



REORIENTATION OF ACTIVITY FROM EXTRACTION TO MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES TO CREATE JOBS

David Lewis: In view of the fact that the increase in Canada's labour force has been foreseen by economists and was foretold by the Economic Council of Canada in reports several years ago, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government is considering a program to reorient Canada's economic activity away from extraction industries, which are capital intensive and produce very few jobs, to a massive expansion of manufacturing industries where large numbers of jobs Lccaan be created?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Certainly we have given a great deal of attention to this problem, but it is not certain that the solution is to be found in the conventional wisdom expressed by the Leader of the New Democratic Party. It might be, for instance, that it is expansion of the service industries rather than the manufacturing industries which would be the most important in the years ahead.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are obviously a large number of supplementary questions to come. For the moment the Chair will recognize the hon. member for York South on a supplementary question and then go on to other supplementary questioners.


David Lewis: In view of the fact that the government headed by the Prime Minister has pursued a very bad part of conventional wisdom-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that the series of questions asked now might easily develop into a debate. The hon. member for York South has the floor for the purpose of asking a supplementary question. Perhaps he might do that now.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I appreciate that ministers of the Crown can refuse to answer ques-

tions, but with the greatest respect I do not quite appreciate the fact that the Prime Minister can make debating points and that in a question one cannot refer to these debating points as being shallow and unsupported.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: It is obvious that neither the Prime Minister nor the hon. member for York South may make debating points, but the hon. member has made his debating point and so did the Prime Minister. When they are made it is a little difficult for the Chair to rule subsequently, but I simply invite the hon. member to ask a question. It is as simple as that.


David Lewis: In view of the fact that the concentration on large capital expansion of the extraction industries has not produced jobs and in view of the insistence of the report of the Economic Council of Canada that in order to create jobs emphasis must be laid on domestic demand, particularly in light of the present international situation, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government is considering fiscal and other programs to expand the manufacturing and service industries in Canada for the purpose of creating the jobs necessary?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The answer is that we have achieved these results. I do not have the statistics at hand but I believe that if we look over the past decade we will see that there has been a faster increase in the manufacturing and service industries than in the extraction industries.



GOVERNMENT ACTION TO BRING ABOUT INCREASE IN PRODUCTIVITY IN CANADIAN INDUSTRY

Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As the latest report of the Economic Council of Canada states that "productivity in Canadian industry must increase substantially if the required number of extra jobs are to be produced", does the government intend to bring this about by offering tax incentives to induce additional productivity, or is it planning on bringing this about by some other means? I ask this question now because the government has had this matter under consideration for some considerable time.


Hon. lean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and myself have something in common. We have both returned from long trips.


Mr. Bell:: Did you have a lot of fun?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I missed about 70 hours of sleep during mine. It appears that the hon. member did miss some too. With respect to tax exemptions or incentives my hon. friend should direct his question to the Minister of Finance, not to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, having held the portfolio that the minister now holds, and having had exactly the same type of questions addressed to me over several years, I would say that if the minister feels he cannot answer
November 30, 1971

these questions then he is not doing his job properly. So, Mr. Speaker, I will ask him a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We will soon be running short of time if every question is prefaced by a statement. This also applies to answers by ministers. I would hope we could try to get on with the business of the question period.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, following on the non-answer that the minister gave me I wish to ask how long the government intends to pursue the policy that there is nothing quite so good as doing nothing and maintaining the status quo?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



POSSIBILITY OF FURTHER TAX CUTS FOR LOW-INCOME CANADIANS TO STIMULATE DEMAND AND PROVIDE JOBS

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In light of the fact that the income tax bill as presently drafted is still before the House, and the stress by the Economic Council of Canada on increasing domestic demand, I wonder if the Prime Minister has conferred with the Minister of Finance and discussed with him the possibility of further tax cuts for low-income Canadians in order that there can be a greater stimulation of domestic demand to provide these much needed jobs in coming years?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to discuss that with the minister when he returns from the Group of Ten meeting in Rome. In the meantime it would be helpful if the legislation presently before the House could be passed as it has the effect of reducing taxes on the low income groups.



UNEMPLOYMENT-DEVELOPMENT OF INDUSTRIAL POLICY TO UTILIZE SCIENCE GRADUATES UNABLE TO FIND WORK

David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a further supplementary question. Perhaps I could preface it by saying that there has been no reluctance on the part of the Minister of Finance to bring in a number of amendments since the bill first came before the House. I would ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the statement in the preliminary report of the Department of Manpower and Immigration on the requirements for university graduates in 1971, issued yesterday, that in 1971 the demand for Bachelor of Science graduates declined by 44 per cent and for Doctor of Science degree holders by 31 per cent, the government is giving consideration to this very serious situation, and is it taking the advice of the Science Council of Canada for the development of a new industrial policy that will utilize this growing number of highly skilled scientific manpower resources that are presently unable to find work?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there are many aspects of our industrial policy which are aimed with this in mind, and I am sure the
Inquiries of the Ministry
Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce will send copies of his statements to the hon. member if the hon. member wants to look into them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I mentioned a moment ago that there are a number of hon. members seeking the floor to ask supplementary questions. For the present the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Shefford and then return to further supplementaries on this subject.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State and of his parliamentary secretary, I shall put my question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Does the government intend to give soon to over 200,000 French-speaking people in northeastern New Brunswick, a French-language television service through the CBC, as the residents and organizations of that area have requested it repeatedly?


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: He has just come back from New Brunswick!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member travelled to other parts of the country, he would see that there is also a demand for more Frenchspeaking television or radio stations.
The Secretary of State is making a study of budgets and he will do his utmost to assist in making French-speaking television and radio available to French-speaking people in different parts of the country.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Since 200,000 citizens of New Brunswick repreent one-third of the population of the province and this demand has existed for several years, can it be hoped that the government will soon cease making studies and take action in behalf of New Brunswick's Acadians?



INCOME TAX


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question in light of the Prime Minister's statement about passing Bill C-259. Would he be prepared to recommend to the Minister of Finance that he split the income tax bill in view of the fact that the newspapers show that several Canadian companies that are also operating in other lands are prepared to move their offices and factories from Canada, which will cost Canadians thousands of jobs? Would he consider splitting

November 30, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
that bill, letting the good part of the bill through and killing that which is killing the economy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the premise of the question. Therefore the answer is no.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Prime Minister understands the premise because he has not read the newspaper reports.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Following the revelation by the Gray Report that too little of the investment funds of Canadian banks actually goes into the Canadian economy, and following the remarks of the Prime Minister this afternoon that more needs to be done to expand the service sector of the economy, is the government giving serious consideration to taking steps which would lead to greater investment in the Canadian economy as a whole, and particularly in the job-creating service sector, by Canadian banks?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We are studying that question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Edmonton West who has been trying since yesterday to ask a question.



FINANCE


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Would the right hon. gentleman tell the House whether the Minister of Finance has taken any instructions from the government of Canada to the meeting of the Group of Ten in Rome with a view to developing initiatives in resolving the international monetary situation, or is Canada merely to adopt a passive role-


George Harris Hees: Just hope and pray.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -and to react to the suggestions of other countries?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, while the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings hopes and prays, the Minister of Finance will be following the line he has taken in the House of Commons.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, it is because of the minister following the usual line that we are making these inquiries. He has had a complete blind

spot in regard to this problem. Therefore I am asking whether we in Canada have developed any particular initiatives to try to resolve this problem?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, again, of course, there is disagreement on the premise of the question. If the hon. member feels the minister has had a blind spot, then he can do no more than hope and pray, like the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings. We will show results.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Is he prepared to indicate whether he signed an agreement some time in June, 1963, on behalf of the government of Canada with the then United States Secretary of Defence, Mr. McNamara, the effect of which was to require the maintenance of a rough dollar balance in our defence production-sharing arrangements with that country?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President oi the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, following discussions with Mr. McNamara I did make a report to the House on the conclusion of those discussions, and in general this was confirmed by an exchange of correspondence. As I think the House is aware, this particular arrangement is now under rather delicate negotiations with the Americans and is no longer my responsibility but that of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


J. Michael Forrestall: I thank the minister for that indication, and I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It is a slightly different question but I suggest it is very closely related to my first one. Can the minister indicate if the present negotiations between Canada and the United States in the field of defence items, defence purchasing, and the area of related research and development information on material and programs, are being conducted on the basis of a required dollar balance formula with the United States and, if so, what is going to happen to the present surplus of $500 million that lies in our favour?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, first, I want to correct the statement made yesterday by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. The $500 million Canadian surplus is a cumulative advantage for 1959-70 and not last year's Canadian surplus under the defence agreement. That is the first point I wished to make.
In the document referred to by the President of the Treasury Board the concept of "general balance" was set out, but it has never been defined. This is where I believe the analysis of circumstances becomes very important. What has happened since 1963 is that there has been a very extensive United States defence commitment around
November 30, 1971

the world and a reduction in Canadian procurement of defence equipment. These circumstances are now changing and last year's surplus for Canada was brought down to $4 million. I think that the agreement of 1963 has to be interpreted in light of those circumstances.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman, having returned from Algeria, Tunisia and other African countries he visited in order to find trade, apparently has not studied the question very carefully; otherwise he would not have made the observation concerning myself. In view of that observation I now ask him whether he will table the agreement of June 6, 1963, I think it was, in connection with the defence expenditures. If he will do that we will have a complete answer, which we do not now have.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I will be delighted to put the record straight. At page-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: Answer yes or no.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the minister that we are getting into a debate. Perhaps he might try to reply to the question quickly. Perhaps we could avoid debate either in the questions or the answers.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am willing to bet the right hon. member for Prince Albert ten bucks that I am right.


George Harris Hees: Make it $20.


Jean-Luc Pepin: On the second point, whether I will put on the table-


George Harris Hees: Put up the money. I have the bet covered.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Right.


John George Diefenbaker: If the hon. member does not have $10 because he spent so much on his trip I will lend the money to him so he can bet it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East on a supplementary. I also suggest to hon. members that I do not think we are progressing very quickly at this point.



PROVISION OF INFORMATION ON HYDROFOIL AND GAS TURBINE ENGINE TO UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ]. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East): Mr. Speaker, may 1 direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence or to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Can either of these two hon. gentlemen indicate to the House whether or not we have turned over to the United States government the full evaluation reports on the Bras d 'Or study and on the JD-6 gas turbine engine so they may be developed and produced in the United States?
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that would be no.
Inquiries of the Ministry
There has, of course, been an exchange of information through a NATO committee on hydrofoil systems.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If hon. members will look around they will see that perhaps 30 or 35 hon. members are seeking to ask questions. We will not reach too many unless we try to proceed more quickly.



PRODUCTION OF TUCUMCARI CLASS HYDROFOIL BY UNITED STATES-POSSIBILITY OF CANADIAN PURCHASES

Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Defence, Mr. Speaker. Since Boeing Aircraft Corporation is now going into the production of the Tucumcari class of hydrofoil, since there is pressure from the United States for us to increase our defence purchases there and since we need coastal patrol vessels, is the government of Canada considering purchasing Tucumcari class hydrofoils for that purpose?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that a hydrofoil class of ship for coastal work would run into real problems with ice and other floating objects off the Canadian coast while a long-range open ocean hydrofoil of the type such as we are working on would not, so I think the answer is no.



FAMILY INCOME SECURITY


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Since the Quebec Minister of Social Affairs stated yesterday that he intends to table a bill on family allowances before the end of December and that it would be difficult for Quebec to introduce a valid measure without knowing the nature of agreements with the federal government, could the Prime Minister assure the House that the negotiations now going on between Quebec and the federal government will be completed before the province introduces its bill in the National Assembly?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I cannot answer the question, Mr. Speaker, because I do not know in detail what will be the attitude of the Quebec government. As for the position of the federal government, it is known because we have already gone through first reading of the family allowances bill.
Regarding the general principles Prime Minister Bou-rassa mentioned at the beginning of September, we have indicated our willingness to negotiate. I cannot give the assurance that negotiations will be completed if Mr. Cas-tonguay wishes to introduce his bill at such a date.

November 30, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to direct my question to the Minister of Finance but in his absence I will direct it to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of information just revealed in the supplementary estimates indicating that the Minister of Finance has authorized his department to purchase $75,000 worth of real or natural tropical plants from the United States to be used in the new offices of the Department of Finance in the Bell Building on Elgin Street-


Gerald William Baldwin: They are lemons.


Alfred Dryden Hales: -may I ask the President of the Treasury Board if he will look into this incident-


An hon. Member:: That's flower power.


Alfred Dryden Hales: -in the hope of stopping this extravagant waste of the taxpayers' money?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think that probably that question can more usefully be explored in committee when the subject of estimates is discussed.


George Harris Hees: Oh, come on now.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I can say for the benefit of the hon. member from the Lake Ontario region that this is part of a rather more economical method of providing partitions and is known as office landscaping.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Do you have any horses on the payroll?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to provide those who still live in the last century with information.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, the minister said that this matter might be examined in committee. I understand that it was examined in committee. If the department insists that these plants be real or natural rather than artificial, would the minister make sure that they are bought in Canada? I can inform him that there is a company in Dundas, Ontario, from which they are available.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member's representation has been noted.


Gerald William Baldwin: There will be a rose for every taxpayer.



SHIPPING


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport on the

matter of subsidies to coastal ship services in Canada, with particular reference to the service on the west coast of Vancouver Island which is slated to be withdrawn on December 31. Will the minister use his good offices with the Canadian Transport Commission to make sure that this essential service is maintained at least until some alternative method of transportation is available for the communities involved, inasmuch as at present they have no other means of getting in their supplies?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression on the basis of information provided by the Canadian Transport Commission that alternative means of transportation were available. If the situation is as my hon. friend describes it, for a short period of time it may be possible to cover that hiatus through continuation, but the matter is one that rests entirely with the CTC.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I will discuss this at ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State who reports to the House for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation I should like to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister.


George Harris Hees: Take it easy, now.


Robert Muir: My question deals with a program using taxpayers' money to be telecast tonight on the CBC and involving a homosexual marriage between two males. In view of the fact this is a half hour program in prime network time-


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Do they need more time?


Robert Muir: That is pretty good, Don. You must know something about it. May I ask the right hon. gentleman whether this program is intended as entertainment or propaganda?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have very serious doubts about the way the question is asked. I would doubt that the hon. member would expect a reply to that question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Cumberland-Col-chester North rises on a point of order.


Mr. Coates:: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege relates to the question asked by the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys of the Prime Minister with regard to a CBC program which is going to be produced tonight, has been advertised, and involves a so-called marriage between two homosexuals of the CBC-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
November 30. 1971


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, we have been laughing a lot about this and I can appreciate there might be something humorous in it were it not for the fact that the taxpayers' money is being spent on something that is vulgar and distasteful to almost every Canadian in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appreciate the point made by the hon. member but I think it is a point of argument. Perhaps the Prime Minister might be allowed to reply to the question but my thought was, and I think I was right, that the way the question was asked by the hon. member was by way of a protest in the same way as the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North is doing now. I do not want to be unfair. If the right hon. Prime Minister feels he should reply to the question he may do so.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As the House knows, Mr. Speaker, when we introduced legislation on this subject it had to do with consenting adults in private. I am not quite sure whether television would be looking at that aspect of it. As one hon. member behind me said, maybe the whole thing is a fairy tale. I do not know.


Gerald William Baldwin: It is more likely a catastrophe.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, may I point out to you that the member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys said to the Minister of Transport that he must know something about homosexuality. It would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that this is the kind of slur which should be withdrawn by the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It would appear that my original judgment might have been justified to some extent and that we might have left well enough alone. I think the hon. members really intended to raise the matter by way of protest and I think they have to assume that their protest has been noted.


Robert Muir: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a question of privilege? The hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North.


Robert Carman Coates: On the question of privilege, I still do not believe we have had a satisfactory answer from the government in this regard, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Robert Carman Coates: I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not here because he is the logical person to make the CBC aware of the feelings of the House with regard to this program in prime family viewing time. I believe that the government should give an indication to the CBC that this House-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That, of course, is not a question of privilege. The hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys is rising on a point of order. I would hope that after this, in the three minutes left, we might try to get two or three questions before we call orders of the day.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I shall not have very much to say but I have a question of privilege. I can only say this to you, sir, that I have the highest regard for the Minister of Transport. In every way possible he is a real man-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Watch your fanmail now, Don.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I really think we might go on to another subject. It is my impression that this subject has been exhausted. Order, please. I do not think much can be gained by pursuing the matter. The hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys has a right to raise a point of order or question of privilege, but I hope we can go on to other matters as quickly as possible.


Robert Muir: I should like to finish my question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. All I can say is that if other hon. gentlemen across the way would take the Minister of Transport as an example with regard to his activities and his actions in this House we would have a better House and a better government. With regard to the utterances by the Prime Minister, I leave that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Muir: I have a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I thought the hon. member had expressed his question of privilege. I really suggest to the hon. member that he has made his point, and I wonder whether he would not agree that we are not helping the situation by prolonging the matter much longer.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Robert Muir: With regard to the utterances and actions of the Prime Minister, I leave that to the people of Canada to judge.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, but I have to wait until he has resumed his seat.
To a question which I addressed to him yesterday, the minister replied that he had not understood its meaning. I therefore gave him notice.
Here is my question: Has the Minister of Agriculture received from his Quebec counterpart a request inviting the federal government to compensate the loss of $16 million incurred by Quebec hog, egg and turkey producers over the last 12 months?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture for Quebec has made some representations to me and has outlined the problem of

November 30, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
loss of income. I am not sure about the exact figures but in fact we already have some programs under way to help the situation with respect to eggs. We have also announced that there will be a program under the Agricultural Stabilization Act as soon as the figures for 1971 are available.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member will be able to put his supplementary in a few moments.



HARBOURS


Mr. William Knight (Assiniboia):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the importance of the port of Vancouver to the prairie provinces, is the minister considering the appointment of a farm representative on the Port of Vancouver Authority?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Not
on the Port of Vancouver Authority, Mr. Speaker. As the new member is aware-I welcome him to the House; it is the first opportunity I have had to do so-there'will be a national ports council on which all three prairie provinces will be represented and the governments of those provinces have to my knowledge already submitted names of the appointees.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: I have a question for the Solicitor General and it may involve a question of parliamentary privilege. Under what authority is the special force headed by Colonel Robin Bourne paid since it seems to the opposition to have been set up since the estimates for the minister's department were presented and approved?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Vote 1 of the estimates of my department, Mr. Speaker.



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the continuing interest in the subject of
[Mr. Olson.1
cabinet leaks, I would ask whether investigations are still being pursued, whether the RCMP are involved, and whether he has given any indication of a date by which he would like a report in this connection?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The matter is still being looked into. There is no indication of any time at which any report might be made.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In light of the fact that the investigation will more than likely point the finger at some person or persons, is it the intention of the government and the Prime Minister to lay charges against such person or persons who may be responsible for the leaks?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that the question is hypothetical at this stage.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I take the opportunity to rephrase the question? Is it the policy of the government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member sought the floor on a point of order but he merely wishes to rephrase the question. I shall allow him to do so in a moment. First, I shall recognize the hon. member for Palliser.



LEAKING OF CABINET DOCUMENTS-POLICY OF GOVERNMENT IN DEALING WITH OFFENDERS

Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Supplementary to my last question, which was perhaps somewhat ill-phrased, I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman whether it is the policy of the government to lay charges against those who are responsible for leaks regardless of who he or she might be?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can hardly state the government's policy on this complex matter in answer to a question. As the hon. member knows, it is unlikely we would deal with a leak from a cabinet minister in the same way as we might in the case of somebody else, and it is unlikely we would deal with it in the same way if it were a member of the public who was infringing the Official Secrets Act. In other words, there are various ways of getting at someone who is responsible for a leak and I do not know in advance, without being specific on hypothetical cases, how I could say we would act.


John George Diefenbaker: One law for the powerful and another for the civil servants.



REQUEST FOR REPORT ON TALKS WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has the government received a report on the energy talks in Washington last week from its officials who attended those talks, including Mr. Robert Howland, chairman of the National Energy Board?
November 30, 1971

Hon. ]ean-Luc Pepin (Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources): I had a very short conversation with Dr. Howland on these matters, but that particular phase was not summarized for me to any extent. I will inquire further.



REQUEST FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF STANDING


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as leader of the House. In light of a statement in the review issued by the Economic Council of Canada that young people are experiencing great difficulty in finding employment, and in light of statements by the Secretary of State over the weekend, will the hon. gentleman now give consideration to the formation in this House of a standing committee on youth?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: As the hon. member knows, we are already complaining generally about the large number of committees and, in particular, about the large number of committees meeting during the busy periods of the session. It seemsnto me it should be possible to permit one of the existing committees to deal with the problems of youth, especially those related to their employment prospects.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Bearing in mind what the minister has just said, may I ask him whether he will undertake to refer problems concerning young people to one of the present standing committees of the House?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will be happy to consider that idea.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Murray McBride (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. It relates to the newly-publicized provincial loan program to increase beef production in Ontario through the encouragement of cow-calf production. In the absence of national marketing legislation arrived at jointly between the government of Canada, the western provinces and Ontario, can the minister inform the House of any conversations now under way to determine the manner in which serious injury to the cattle industry in western Canada as a result of this new provincial policy might be avoided?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker. We have not held any discussions specifically concerning this policy. I think it is one which will probably be completely within the jurisdiction of the provincial government. However, I am sure the hon. member is aware that there was almost unanimous agreement by all
Inquiries of the Ministry
provinces that we should get on with national enabling legislation.



CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Can the Prime Minister tell the House what salaries are being paid to the president and chairman of the Canada Development Corporation?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that this question should be placed on the order paper. If there is urgency attached to it, it might be considered at the time of adjournment. The hon. member knows it is not normal to ask, during the question period, what salaries are paid to officials.



AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
PROMOTION OF EDIBLE OIL PRODUCTION FROM RAPESEED-DEVELOPMENT OF PROGRAM IN L	CONJUNCTION WITH OTHER PRODUCERS
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. It is based on the announcement he made in the House earlier today. I should like to ask whether the government, in its promotion of greater production of edible oils, particularly from rapeseed, has developed its program in conjunction with other producers of edible oils in Canada, or whether it will be solving the problem in one area while creating further problems in others, as has been the case in so many instances?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I do not think this will create problems in other areas because, outside the use of rapeseed oil in Canada, almost all of the other oils are not produced in sufficient quantities in Canada to supply the domestic market. What we are primarily interested in is that the trade should be in a position to accommodate the health standards without too much economic difficulty.



RAPESEED-DETAILS OF ASSISTANCE TO PRODUCERS

Alfred Pullen Gleave: Would the Minister of Agriculture clarify the type and quantity of assistance to rapeseed producers and what is actually involved so the House will know that it is not a subsidy proposition and so that hon. members will know the extent of what is aimed at in the statement he made in the House today?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I would be very happy to do that. I wonder if I might have another ten seconds. When I come into the House with a statement which contains a great deal of detail, the opposition ojects; when I do not bring in enough they still object.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Orders of the day.

November 30, 1971
Income Tax Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The government resumed, from Monday, November 29, consideration in committee of Bill C-259, to amend the Income Tax Act and to make certain provisions and alterations in the statute law related to or consequential upon the amendment to that act-Mr. Benson-Mr. Laniel in the chair.
On clause 1-Section 167: Application to Review Board for time extension.
The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I invite hon. members who may wish to leave the chamber to do so as quickly as possible in order that we can proceed to the work of the committee.
In accordance with the statement of the President of the Privy Council, as recorded at page 9992 of Hansard of November 29, the committee will now resume consideration of sections 167 and 168, 169 to 180 inclusive, followed by part XV and part XVI, sections 220 to 247 inclusive. I must bring it to the attention of the committee that section 166 has been agreed to. The committee has an amendment to section 167 before it, proposed by the hon. member for New Westminster, as indicated at page 9664 of Hansard.
Shall the amendment to subclause 167 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Gérald Laniel: Shall I put the amendment again?


Mr. Gray:: Mr. Chairman, would you inform us which clause you are calling at this point as it is difficult to hear. Is it 167?


Gérald Laniel: I appreciate the point made by the hon. member. There has been quite a bit of noise while going into committee and I would invite hon. members to let the committee proceed as quickly as possible with the study of the clause in front of us. If any hon. members wish to have personal conversations, I think these should be carried on behind the curtains. It is very difficult, even for the Chair, to hear what is being said. The committee is studying clause 167 at this time and the question is on the amendment moved by the hon. member for New Westminster, which reads as follows:
That subsection (1) be amended by the deletion of the words "because of the death, incapacity, sickness, or bankruptcy of a taxpayer".
And that the same words be deleted from subsection (4).
Is the committee ready for the question?


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, hon. members will recall that the last time we dealt with that section, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth) wanted it to be amended because it was a little restrictive and would be unfair under certain circumstances. For instance, should the secretary forget to send the letter or the notice required, this could cause a wrong to the taxpayer. This is why the hon. member for New Westminster had moved

that amendment which is acceptable and approved by the government.
With the committee's permission I would like to read the government's amendment to section 167.


Gérald Laniel: Order. Does the Parliamentary Secretary suggest that the first amendment be withdrawn with the unanimous consent of the House because the government wants to move another one?


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that it be withdrawn because the government's proposed amendment meets with the hon. member's wishes.


Gérald Laniel: The parliamentary secretary is suggesting that the government has an amendment to replace the amendment moved by the hon. member for New Westminster. This can only be done either by voting on the amendment or withdrawing it by unanimous consent. Does the committee give unanimous consent to allowing the hon. member for New Westminster to withdraw his amendment?

I wish the Parliamentary Secretary would tell me whether the hon. member for New Westminster agrees that his amendment be withdrawn.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for New Westminster, is aware of the government's amendment. He agrees to withdraw his own amendment.


Gérald Laniel: Does the committee give unanimous consent to the withdrawal of the amendment moved by the hon. member for New Westminster?


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for New Westminster is prepared to withdraw his amendment, then I see no objection to that course.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, is it the wish of the committee that I read the government's proposal?

Is it the wish of the committee that I read the government's amendment?


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. If the parliamentary secretary only wants to read his motion, the Chair will allow him to do so, but he cannot move another amendment until the amendment which is now under study has been withdrawn. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary might read his amendment for the information of hon. members.


Albert Béchard: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but my understanding was that the committee had agreed unanimously, following consent of the hon. member for New Westminster.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The Chair was under the impression that the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) wanted clearer confirmatin of the desire of the hon. member for New Westminster to
November 30, 1971

withdraw his amendment, and I think that the only way that we are going to make any progress is to put the question again.
Does the committee agree to the withdrawal of the motion of the hon. member for New Westminster?

Does the committee give unanimous consent to allowing the hon. member for New Westminster to withdraw the amendment that is before the committee?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Once again, Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for New Westminster should stand in this House and indicate his consent to its withdrawal. I have no objection at all to that being done if that is his wish, but I think it would be up to the hon. member to indicate that he is prepared to withdraw his amendment.


Mr. Clermont:: Mr. Chairman, I am told that the hon. member concerned is not here today. However according to the statement made by the hon. member for Bonaven-ture-Iles-de-la-Madeleine the hon. member for New Westminster has agreed to withdraw his amendment.


Gérald Laniel: The hon. parliamentary secretary knows that this amendment can only be withdrawn with the unanimous consent of the House. If the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka maintains his objection there will be no other solution for the committee than to discuss that amendment and to vote on it.

The Chair is inviting hon. members to co-operate, and to give the Chair guidance, so we can come to a quick decision and proceed with the work of the committee.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Chairman, I believe the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka is quite correct in saying that an amendment can be withdrawn only if the mover so requests. However, I think the hon. member would agree with me that if any member of the House can stand and say that he is so doing on behalf, and with the approval, of that hon. member, then we can accept it. I believe that what bothers us up to this point is that we have had vague statements on the part of certain hon. members opposite that the hon. member for New Westminister will agree to this but that is all. If we can have a firm statement from an hon. member that he is doing it at the request of the hon. member for New Westminister, then I believe we would accept it.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, I cannot say that the hon. member for New Westminister has explicitly authorized me to withdraw his amendment.
However, after proposing his amendment the hon. member for New Westminster had a talk with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and agreed to accept the proposal of the department.
In order not to delay the proceedings, I would suggest that the clause be allowed to stand.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In that case, Mr. Chairman, I do not think the amendment should be with-24725-5
Income Tax Act
drawn at this point. After all, we have to protect every member in this respect. Either the matter stands and we move to something else, or the amendment will have to be put to a vote. If the government wants it defeated, it can soon defeat it, so why not call the vote?


Albert Béchard: That is what I said, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment should stand.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Let us vote on it now and get it out of the way.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The Chair cannot accept the suggestion made by the parliamentary secretary that the amendment stand. If the government wishes to suggest to the committee that the clause be stood, then the Chair would have no objection.

But I must point out to the hon. member that it is quite difficult for the Chair to suspend the debate on this amendment and let the government introduce another one on the clause now under consideration. If the government is ready to allow clause 167 to stand, I think that it would be acceptable to the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Gérald Laniel: The question is on the amendment moved by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth).
Amendment (Mr. Hogarth) negatived on division: Yeas, 23; Nays, 50.


Gérald Laniel: I declare the amendment lost.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, I think it should be made clear that in voting against the amendment we just disposed of we are not opposing-


Robert Jardine McCleave: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. Probably the Chair was just about to do the same thing the hon. member is attempting to do. The minister knows he is not allowed, under the Standing Orders of the House, to comment on any vote taken previously.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Your point is well taken, Mr. Chairman. It is my intention to comment not on the vote but on the point of view expressed by the hon. member for New Westmis-ter. Because his point appeared to have validity, we are prepared at this time to move an amendment which we think will give recognition to the point of view he has expressed. I should like at this time to move the following amendment:
That section 167 as set forth in clause 1 of the said Bill be amended
(a)	by striking out lines 14 to 26 on page 441 and substituting the following:
Application to Review Board for time
extension
167. (1) Where no objection to an assessment under section 165 or appeal to the Tax Review Board under section 169 has been made or instituted within the time limited by section 165 or 169, as the case may be, for doing so, an application may be made to the Tax Review Board for an order extending the time within which a notice of objection may be served or an appeal instituted and the

November 30, 1971
Income Tax Act
Board may, if in its opinion the circumstances of the case are such that it would be just and equitable to do so, make an order extending the time for objecting or appealing and may impose such terms as it deems just.
(b)	by striking out lines 1 to 13 on page 442 and substituting the following:
Application (4) Where no appeal to the Federal Court of for time Canada under section 172 has been instituted within extension to the time limited by that section, an application Federal	may be made to the Federal Court of Canada by
Court	notice filed in the Court and served on the Deputy
Attorney General of Canada at least 14 days before the application is returnable for an order extending the time within which such appeal may be instituted and the Court may, if in its opinion the circumstances of the case are such that it would be .just and equitable to do so. make an order extending the time for appealing and may impose such terms as it deems just.


Gérald Laniel: The committee has heard the amendment moved by the Minister of National Revenue. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.
Clause 1, section 167 as amended, agreed to.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, just as a matter of clarification I understood there was another amendment. It may have been disposed of, but there was, according to my recollection, an amendment to section 167 subsection 1 to the effect that the words "because of the death, incapacitating sickness or bankruptcy of a taxpayer" be struck out. Perhaps we disposed of this amendment. If so, I stand to be corrected. However, it was my recollection that this amendment was before the committee.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, we just disposed of that amendment a while ago. It was included in the amendment of the hon. member for New Westminster.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, may I speak on this matter? I believe it is rather important. What happened was that the amendment which came before the House had certain underlined words in it. I suppose it could be said that the underlined words in the amendment moved by the minister replaced the phrase referred to by my hon. friend, but the fact is that most members of the committee could, if faced by the wording of the amendment referred to by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, really be caught by surprise.
Admittedly, I can see that the words being added are intended to cover the words being struck out, but we have had sort of half the loaf presented and the other half not presented. I do not know whether this is really a good point of order but it probably illustrates better than anything else the difficulties that can be encountered when trying to deal in a body of 264 people with a complicated act which affects over 22 million people.


Gérald Laniel: Order. The hon. member knows the Chair can only abide by the decision of the committee. The question was on the amendment of the hon. member for New Westminster and that was defeated. Perhaps the best solution to this problem might be for the hon. member to move an amendment which would clarify the proposal he wishes to take. This course is open to all members of the committee. The Chair cannot give direction. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the Chair can only abide by the decision of the committee.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I just rise to say I was under the impression there had been another amendment, but I am assured there was not, and therefore we can proceed with this clause.


Gérald Laniel: Perhaps on this particular point of order I might bring to the attention of the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka the fact that there was an amendment to section 167 in respect of the French version. It was adopted on November 17, 1971.
On clause 1-Section 168: Notice of intention to revoke registration.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, may I say a few words on this section? Perhaps I might ask the parliamentary secretary for an explanation, because this deals with the machinery to be set up within the government to revoke the registration of Canadian charitable organizations. This section is not intended to apply to a request being made by the organization in extremis, I presume, but when it ceases to comply with the requirements of this act for its registration as such under (b). Is there any procedure by which the organization could, in effect, take issue with the minister if he decides that it has failed to comply with the requirements of the act for its registration, and what would that procedure be?


Gaston Clermont: I will refer the hon. member to section 172 (3).


Gérald Laniel: Shall section 168 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Clause 1, Section 169 to 171 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 1-Section 172: Appeal.
Gérald Laniel: The committee will now study section 172, to which there is an amendment that was moved by the Minister of National Revenue on October 22. Shall the amendment carry?


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


Gérald Laniel: Shall section 172 as amended carry?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: No, Mr. Chairman. I have several points to raise in connection with section 172, having disposed of the other sections fairly rapidly. I propose to move an amendment, unless the point that I wish to raise is covered. The first point relates to section 172 (3) which states that where the minister refuses to register an applicant,
November 30, 1971

there is a right of appeal. What I am asking is why this right of appeal is not broad enough to cover almost all cases. Why is it limited to just this one? I know that there are several other situations in which a minister might very well refuse to do what is expected of him and in that case there would be no appeal unless it was covered by (a) (b)
(c)	and (d). I would like to ask why it is limited in this way.


Gaston Clermont: Mr. Chairman, to my mind section 172 (3) which the hon. member mentioned covers more than appeals dealing with charitable donations.
Here are a few cases where one can appeal the decision of the minister: first, when the minister refuses to register a charitable organization under subsection 168(1); second, when he refuses to register an amateur athletic association; third, when he proposes to revoke the registration of a charitable organization or an amateur athletic association; fourth, when he refuses to register a retirement savings plan; fifth, when he refuses to register a profit sharing plan; sixth, when he refuses to issue a certificate of exemption under subsection 212 (13). In all those cases, one must appeal to the Federal Court of Canada.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: In connection with the same problem, the appeal envisaged under section 172 (3) is to the court of appeal rather than to the trial division. It seems illogical in a case such as this that people should have to go through the procedure of going to the court of appeal as if they had already had a trial on the issue before a judge in the first instance. Courts of appeal require the transmission of documents, evidence, and so forth, and in most cases a factum that will allow the three judges to consider all the evidence, but in fact there will have been no preliminary decision on the problem. This results in two things: first, the appellant will have difficulty in finding out exactly what the minister decided and for what reasons, and second, it will be an expensive proposition to go to the court of appeal rather than to the trial division. This point has been raised in the submission made by the Canadian Bar Association, and I would be very loath to argue with them on this point. I imagine that the submission of the Canadian Bar Association on this particular point was made to the minister and I wanted to ask whether the point has been considered. If it has, and has been rejected, I would like to know why.


Gaston Clermont: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has received a copy of the brief of the Canadian Bar Association. I am not now in a position to comment the remarks of the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: The hon. member has just pointed out one of the difficulties we are encountering in the committee in dealing with this bill. I do not wish to show any disrespect for the parliamentary secretary, who is doing his best to pilot this bill. I cast no aspersions on the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance who has on other occasions been here, nor do I cast aspersions on the adviser who is before him, but I want to point out to the committee that our problem is that the minister is not able 24725-51
Income Tax Act
to be present to pilot this bill through, and we cannot get any definitive answers. I do not blame the parliamentary secretary. I know he is doing his best, but not only has he difficulty in making responses but he is also in the impossible position of being unable to make any commitments, or accept any amendments, or take unto himself the powers that a minister, piloting a bill through Parliament, ought to be able to exercise. This has caused a lot of the delay in passing the various sections.


Gaston Clermont: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray) should be back in a moment. He was called outside the House, but he will soon return.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, there is nothing new here. The hon. member who is a distinguished member of the Bar knows that administrative decision-making follows the appeal procedure rather than the method he described earlier.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I may have been diverted, but I want to know whether the suggestion of the Canadian Bar Association has been considered by the Minister of Finance. Has he rejected it and, if so, why? I do not think the Minister of National Revenue could help us very much. Unless he has been concerned with the bill daily, he would be unable to answer this question. I will let this matter stand for a moment because I do not want to be unduly difficult about it. I shall go on to the other subsection on which I intend to be difficult, dealing with time limitations for appeals.
Under this subsection, if a person files an application for registration, or for any of the other things covered here, and if the minister does not make a response to it, then there is nothing from which to appeal. As it is, it takes long enough to have an appeal heard and go through all the procedures that are set out in the legislation. By refusing to give a decision, the minister can divert an appeal. It is the old story, that justice delayed is justice denied. An organization may apply for registration as a charitable organization, an amateur athletic association, or something of that sort. If it gets no response to its application, there is nothing on earth it can do about it.
The organization cannot appeal against rejection because its application has not been rejected. The applicant is placed in an impossible position. This is similar to the type of question raised by the Canadian Bar Association. There should be a time limit within which the minister must either refuse or accept an application, and if the application is not dealt with in the time spelled out, the applicant should be able to proceed as if the application has been rejected. He would then be able to go ahead with his appeal and try to get some answers from the courts that he could not get from the minister.
I wish to move an amendment providing for the addition of a subsection (4), but before doing so I would like to ask if anyone sitting opposite can tell me why there should not be a time limit within which the minister must reply to an application.

November 30, 1971
Income Tax Act


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, if the minister refuses to take action or to arrive at a decision along the lines mentioned by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka, one could ask the Federal Court 'to issue a writ of mandamus against the minister, depending upon the circumstances.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A writ of mandamus?


Albert Béchard: Yes.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: If they cannot have bread, let them eat cake.


Albert Béchard: Pardon?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: If they cannot have bread, let them eat cake.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, surely these obscure procedures are not the kind that you would ask a Canadian charitable organization or amateur athletic association to go through-mandamus applications? In many cases the minister could appear before the court on such an application and say, "We are still looking into the matter." In this way the application could be stalled. In order to get the matter before the committee and on the record I move:
That clause 172 be amended by the addition of a new subclause-
(4) The Minister shall be deemed to have refused any application
under 3(a), (b), (c) and (d) above, if he has not notified the
applicant of his disposition thereof within six months after the
date of submission of the application.


Gérald Laniel: Shall the amendment carry?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I would first like to say that I think this amendment is reasonable. Some of my colleagues suggest I am being quite generous with the minister in allowing him six months in which to consider and decide on an application. They say 90 days would be enough, but what I am trying to do is simply close this loophole because it will cause some difficulties in the future. Through this bill we are trying to give the public a bit of a break; at least, that should be our objective. It certainly is the objective of the official opposition, and I am sure the government would say it has the same objective.
Here is a straightforward amendment. I cannot see any reason it should not be accepted. If the minister has not decided on an application within six months, he will be deemed to have refused it. I could have worded the amendment so that he would be deemed to have accepted the application, and then it would be up to the minister to appeal. But I am not trying to cause administrative difficulties for the department. I am merely saying, "You have to make a decision on an application within six months and, if you don't, then there is ground for appeal as if you had refused it; the people involved can take their appeal before the courts." I do not have much more to add. I think the request is reasonable. It would not change the substance of the section and, if accepted, would make

this provision much more clear for the average individual who wants to have an appeal heard but who is fed up with waiting. It would provide a definite time limit. I think that all those on the government side of the committee will concede this is a reasonable amendment.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, may I just add my support to the general thrust of the amendment proposed by my colleague. I think that the parliamentary secretary gave a very poor answer when he said that in cases of this kind a writ of mandamus is available. It seems to me that is a most cavalier attitude to display towards the taxpayer. There is one criticism of the amendment. Frankly, it gives the ministry too long a period in which to make up its mind with regard to registration under section 172(3)(a). I am referring to its right to refuse registration of an application or to revoke a registration, all of which is quite properly provided for in the bill. You know, people learn different things around Ottawa, and one of those things is that what are usually set out as maxima become minima. I would think that a 90-day period would be more than ample for determining whether a charity is a proper charity or whether some application should be accepted, refused or a registration revoked. Ninety days should be the limit, and from there on any remedies available should be open to a taxpayer.


Gaston Clermont: Mr. Chairman, may I suggest to the hon. member who has moved the amendment that, for the time being, proceedings should be delayed for a few minutes in order to give the Minister of National Revenue the opportunity to get a copy of the amendment which we do not have at present.


Gérald Laniel: Shall section 172 stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 1-Section 172, stands.
Clause 1-Section 173, agreed to.
On Clause 1-Section 174-Reference to Federal Court or Tax Review Board of common questions.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, section 174(1) reads:
Where the Minister is of the opinion that a question of law, fact or mixed law and fact is common to assessments in respect of two or more taxpayers, he may apply to the Tax Review Board or the Federal Court-Trial Division for a determination of the question.
I think I understand the reasoning behind the section. In cases where the minister is in some doubt about whether a ruling involving, say, three different people who have brought forward similar cases, is right, it would be quite logical, I think, for him to take advantage of the section, refer the matter to the courts, and get the taxpayer to put his argument forward before the court. However, I think in this particular case the taxpayer should consent to that proposition, because we will not go to court unless he wishes to go. He may find himself in the position that the minister is appealing for him a case which he, the taxpayer, would just as soon let drop. Surely, the taxpayer should have the right to decide what he wants to do.
November 30, 1971

Second, the taxpayer may feel that his case is different from the one involving the other people, and that the cases should not be tried together. I am, therefore, suggesting that section 174 should only come into effect with the consent of the taxpayer and that the decision should not rest solely with the Minister of National Revenue. I think it is most likely, in situations like this, that the taxpayer would consent; after all, he will need to pay only a portion of the costs of obtaining counsel and taking the matter to appeal. I am suggesting that the section should be invoked only with the consent of the taxpayer, and the decision should not rest solely with the minister. May I have some comment on this? I think it is a reasonable request. I have not prepared an amendment yet on this particular section, but I might be prepared to do so if there is not a reasonable response.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, while I am addressing a few remarks to the Chair and to the minister, perhaps my colleague will consider whether he wishes to submit an amendment. I share his apprehension. I do not think that the minister should have the sole determination of whom the parties shall be in this, shall we say, reference to either the Tax Appeal Board or the Federal Court, Trial Division. It is a well known axiom, and it is provided for elsewhere in the act, that there must be no riding in on coat tails. In other words, one taxpayer cannot sit idly by and let another taxpayer bear the brunt of litigation, either before the Tax Appeal Board, the Federal Court, Trial Division, or a higher court, in the possible anticipation that the result will be favourable to the original litigating taxpayer. Otherwise, once the litigant taxpayer has obtained a satisfactory decision from the tribunal, the chap who has sat idly by could ride in and make a claim as well, without having shared or borne any risk or cost and I do not think that this is right.
However, in this particular case it is the minister who has discretion as to whom he may join and whom he may put aside and keep out of the case. It may be that the taxpayer in question has not had the opportunity of knowing that the minister will start proceedings against someone else. It seems to me that there has to be some protection for a taxpayer who has been excluded, but who should have been included by the minister. You will have it either one way or the other. Either the minister's discretion to join certain parties shall be challengeable in one way or another, or the exclusion by the minister from the proceedings shall not operate to the prejudice of the claim of a taxpayer who has a common basis for the assessment. I know this is a rather fine point, but I suggest that we must provide justice on both sides of the street, shall we say. The minister is entitled to do something. I fully accept the proposition that the minister should have some rights in regard to these matters; but then, I think the taxpayer has certain rights, too. The prerogatives are not entirely with the minister.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, I think the last two members who have spoken have raised some very useful points with regard to this section. First of all, I would submit to the committee that the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka is attempting to give the wording of the section a wider meaning than is in fact intended. I would suggest
Income Tax Act
that the wording of the section in effect, provides that the jurisdiction given would be circumscribed in that there must be a common question in fact and law, and not merely a similar question, in order for the minister to take the action intended under Section 174(1).
Also Mr. Chairman, may I submit that if one looks at Section 174(2) and (3) I think it would be apparent from the wording that a taxpayer who is included in a notice from the minister would not therefore automatically be bound by a decision of the Tax Review Board or a Federal Court but rather, if I may use the wording of the section, the Tax Review Board or the Federal Court would have to be satisfied:
-that a determination of the question set forth in an application under this section will affect assessments in respect of two or more taxpayers who have been served with a copy of the application and who are named in an order of the Board or the Court, as the case may be, pursuant to this subsection, it may
(a)	if none of the taxpayers so named has appealed from such an assessment, proceed to determine the question in such manner as it considers appropriate, or
(b)	if one or more of the taxpayers so named has or have appealed, make such order joining a party or parties to that or those appeals as it considers appropriate.
I would think from this, Mr. Chairman, that it is open to a taxpayer who receives a notice to go to the Tax Review Board and make his case that he should not be included in any determination of the question referred to the Board by the minister because the question is not a common question of fact and law.
To conclude, Mr. Chairman, I think that the hon. members who have just commented on this section have raised points which are certainly worthy of consideration, but I respectfully submit that the wording of the section does, in effect, deal with the matters of concern.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I think we have a rather important point here, because of the changes that are being brought about in the Income Tax Act, so I should like to present for the consideration of the minister the following suggestion. He has mentioned that under Section 174(1) it is a question of law or mixed law and fact common to assessments in respect of two or more taxpayers.
Let us consider the example discussed earlier under a subparagraph which was passed, and which may have a great deal of relevance to thousands of people across Canada, namely the travelling salesman who is provided with the use of a company vehicle. The first four or five travelling salesmen in the fray, who have a question of law or mixed law and fact common to themselves and also common to several thousand other travelling salesmen who have not entered the fray, may be blazing the trail to try to find out exactly what the law is on this point. I wonder why the minister, or whoever drafted the bill, did not make this provision broad enough to include an association of travelling salesmen or an association of this, that or the other type of taxpayer with common interests who could raise questions before the court. Was any consideration given to the approach of not really dealing with the numbers of taxpayers but dealing with the class or kind of taxpayer?

November 30, 1971
Income Tax Act


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has also raised a useful point. I think he is right in saying, and I am so advised, that associations of the type he had in mind would not be covered by the sections we are studying. I think the reason is that there is quite a difference of opinion among people in the type of associations he has in mind about whether they should be bound by action taken allegedly on their behalf by the association-perhaps a professional association. It was thought, therefore, that for the time being we would not attempt to resolve this question.
If I may have the floor for another moment with your permission, Mr. Chairman, and if I am out of order I know you will bring me to order. We had asked that Section 172 stand so that we could have a chance to read the wording of the amendment proposed to it by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. We have now read the wording and we would certainly like to give further consideration to the point he has raised. It may be that something could be considered in the area he has suggested, but at the very least we will have to give further consideration to the wording and so on. I should like to inform the committee and the hon. member of this and ask the consent of the committee that this section continue to stand, not simply to allow a reading of the hon. member's amendment.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I hope the minister does not feel at all put out that we are questioning rather closely on this particular group of sections. If he will examine Bill C-259, he will see that, according to the explanatory notes, all of the paragraphs in these sections are new. These are new sections, so I think we would be remiss if we did not question them very carefully. After all, if there had been prior experience with this type of legislation we could say that it had been working out fairly well in the past, but this is all brand new. The point made by my colleague from Parry Sound-Muskoka is just one example.
The other point I have to make, and I would like the minister to take it under careful consideration, is one that is quite relative to this section. It is very much on all fours. I refer to the section which gives the minister, and I repeat, which gives the minister a discretion in joining of parties properly qualified as to communion of circumstances. If, as a result of the exercise of that discretion, a person who should have been included in the action is thereby excluded, this exclusion should not operate to that person's prejudice. That is what I want, justice for the minister and justice for the taxpayer.
I should like the minister to take that point under advisement so that there are not people who are simply told "Look, old boy, we did not join you; perhaps we should have, but the fact is we did not". There is another rule which says, because you were not a party to the action or you did not take any formal steps such as filing a notice of appeal or an application to be joined to the action, you are thereby precluded from any benefit of the court's decision. I think that would be terribly wrong.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the hon. member that these sections are very important. I think that the hon. member can infer from responses not only by myself but by the parliamentary secretaries who are speaking on

behalf of the government on this subject, that we are trying to listen very carefully to the points raised, and to give them reasonable consideration. I can only repeat the points I made when I last spoke a few moments ago on the section.
First, I would think there is recourse for people who are mentioned in the notice and who think they should not have been mentioned. But I hope the hon. member's point is somewhat different-that it deals with people who are not joined in the notice but who would like to be joined. It would seem to me that the recourse for them would be to have the matter disposed of through an appeal directed to their own particular case, and this could be done without altering the section in any way.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Perhaps I see a glimmer of the solution to the problem I have posed. Under paragraph (b) of section 174(3) the tribunal is given power to join a party who was not originally a party to the appeal.
If one or more of the taxpayers so named has or have appealed . .. the review board or the federal court. .. may make such order joining a party or parties to that or those appeals as it considers appropriate.
It seems to me it is within the practice of the tribunal in dealing with the conduct of its affairs to provide for a simple form of notice in which a taxpayer can say to the board, in effect, that he has heard that a certain case is to be tried, that he has a case which is comparable, and he would like it to be heard also. It could all be done in very simple language, and a solution might be devised by way of regulations covering either or both tribunals.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: My hon. friend from Edmonton West and I have approached the same problem from different directions. I did not find the response of the minister satisfactory from my point of view. I have read through the subsections (2), (3) and (4) in the light of the hon. gentleman's remarks, and I still feel that a taxpayer who does not particularly wish to be drawn into a case with another taxpayer is left without any real remedy. The subsection provides that his case can be joined and makes a decision on his assessment final. It is as simple as that.
I can think of a number of cases where the consequences would be undesirable. For example, a fraudulent or scandalous aspect might arise in connection with a particular tax case, and one of the taxpayers may have no connection whatever with those particular circumstances or with those concerned-he just happens honestly to be in a similar situation. He may wish very much to dissociate himself from the publicity which might attach to that case. It is possible that such a case might become a matter of public interest, that the press would take it up, believing there was a real story in the events behind the scenes. Another person in a similar situation might well have no desire in the world to be associated with those circumstances. Yet he might have been unfortunate enough to have come along at the same time and to have been forced into becoming a party to the appeal.
Then again, a taxpayer may feel that his situation is not, in fact, similar. He may believe there are other points of fact or of law which he needs to make. It do not feel that the review board or the federal court could in fact deter-
November 30, 1971

mine whether this was so or not without going through the whole case. I can see no reason for a taxpayer being forced into a court case to which he does not want to be a party. I can advance a dozen reasons, and I have already given two examples. He does not want his appeal to be tied to the appeal of someone else. This would only seem to be fair to the taxpayer.
All I would propose at the moment, and I am putting this forward for consideration by the minister, is that if, in fact, a person can separate himself from the appeal of another taxpayer, and the government agrees this can be done, it should be spelled out in the bill. My proposal would be that the words "with the consent of such taxpayers" be inserted in section 174(1) in line 43 on page 446. The subsection would then read that the minister, in respect of two or more taxpayers, and so on, might, with the consent of such taxpayers, apply to the tax review board or to the federal court, trial division, etc. As the section stands I do not think the exception in subsection (3), in accordance with which the review board or the federal court has to decide that cases are similar, is sufficient protection for the public. I have prepared an amendment to this subsection, but before putting it I should like to know whether the minister is unequivocally opposed to my proposition. I cannot see'any reason he should be.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, I can see the hon. member's point of view. It seems to me that the wording of the section before us does not fail to meet his point to the extent that he suggests. First of all, I think he will agree that the final word on whether there is a common question of law, fact, or mixed law and fact is not that of the minister but that of the Tax Review Board or the Federal Court. Of course, this provides a further opportunity for the taxpayer in question to make his point that he should not be included in the matter.
Second, the hon. member has spoken of a similar question of fact; if I am not mistaken, he did use the word "similar". Again I submit that the jurisdiction intented by the clause is already circumscribed by the existing wording in that there must be a common question of fact or law and not a similar question.
If I may take a moment I should like to give the committee some idea of the type of case intended to be dealt with in this section. For example, it is contemplated that the section could be used in those cases where there is a dispute as to whether amounts paid or received have been paid or received as alimony. For example, under section 56 an amount received by a taxpayer as alimony is required to be included in his income, and under section 60(b) the amount so paid as alimony may be deducted in computing the income of the person who made the payment.
In many cases of payments between former spouses there is often an irreconcilable difference of opinion as to whether moneys paid, say, by the husband to the wife are payments on account of alimony. In such cases, the revenue authorities are basically indifferent to the resolution of the dispute provided it is one that applies both to the person who has made the payment and the person who has received the money. I use this as an example of the
Income Tax Act
type of situation to which it is intended this section should apply.
I might also point out that if the wording of the hon. member is included in an amendment to section 174-I think the wording he suggested is "with the consent of the taxpayer"-I am advised that, in effect, section 174 would be really no different from section 173, with which I think we have just dealt. That section provides that where a minister and the taxpayer agree in writing that a question of law, fact, or mixed law and fact arising under the act should be determined by the Federal Court, the question shall be determined by the court, and so on. This section we are presently studying is intended to deal with a somewhat different situation.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: That is rule 75(c).


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: However, as I say, I can see the hon. member's point of view, and if he would let us see his wording, and the committee consents to standing the clause for a period, we are prepared to give the matter some further thought.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I mentioned the point I am going to raise to the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka and he was kind enough to yield me the right of way. I should like to raise this question with the minister and his officials so they will consider it along with the matters raised by my hon. friend from Parry Sound-Muskoka.
My point can be briefly expressed. Canada is a very large country and to notify a taxpayer in, say, Halifax that he has the same problem as a taxpayer in Midland or in Edmonton might work some injustice. These people could be stuck with journeying to courts situated far away from their own territory in order to join in a common front against the Department of Finance and the Department of National Revenue.
I have read section 174 on three or four different occasions, and it does seem to me that the powers being given are a little too broad in that no regard is had to the fact that a taxpayer might be put to more expense than a case was worth. For example, a taxpayer might be put in a position where he has to say he will not go to Toronto to argue a case since it will cost him $500 to do so, whereas the point at issue could be settled for, say, $300. This might sound like a very technical objection, but I think it is a valid one given the wide geographical spread of Canada.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I am quite happy to have the minister consider this amendment. I should like him to consider this additional matter at the same time. He pointed out that we have just passed section 173 which deals with doing things by consent. He said this provision would cover the situation to which I was referring. But what I am trying to prevent is this. I have no objection to the provisions in section 173 where the parties agree that there shall be an appeal presented, but I do object to a situation where the parties say they will not agree and then the minister comes along and says they will have to go to court anyway because they are going to be added under section 174. This is rule 75(c) of the House of Commons rules being repeated in the Income Tax Act. The

November 30, 1971
Income Tax Act
minister is saying that he will give the taxpayers one chance to come in by consent, and that if they do not come in under section 173 he will bring them in under section 174. I do not generally agree with rule 75(c), and I do not agree with its being repeated in this bill.
I also do not know why, if the minister so desired and he had a number of cases of a similar type, the minister could not submit one of the cases as a model case to the court for the court's opinion. But regardless of the other things that he should or should not do, I object to that part of section 174 under which taxpayers can be told that, whether they like to join in proceedings or not they will be forced to do so, and that in order to escape it they would have to apply to the court.
Perhaps my amendment is not framed exactly in the wording the minister would like, but I want to take the compulsory aspect out of this provision and make it easier for the taxpayer who does not want to be a party to litigation. Surely, there is no principle of law-that I know of anyway-under which a person can be forced to go to court when he does not want to do so. If there is some other way that the same end can be achieved, then I would be happy to hear about it. I am happy to allow the section to stand for the time being, and incidentally I hope that if we have some answer to this point before too long we will be able to put the sections through.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, I hope to make some further comment in a definitive way on this matter shortly, if not before the supper adjournment then after supper.


The Chairman:: Shall subclause 174 stand?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, there is one other problem before standing the whole clause and it is this. In subclause (5) of section 174 I understand there is a "not" in the original draft that should not be there. It is at line 15 on page 448. Unless I have read it wrongly, I understand that the word "not" should not be there. It was noted in the Canadian Bar Association's presentation that they believed this "not" was a misprint. I did want to draw that to the attention of the minister now before finally dealing with this clause.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I would like to thank the hon. member for drawing this to our attention. When we are ready to come back to his earlier point we will also attempt to dispose of that one.


Russell Clayton Honey: Section 174 shall stand.
Clause 1, section 174 stands.
Clause 1, sections 175 and 176 agreed to.
On Clause 1-Section 177: Disposal of appeal.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, section 177 is former section 100(5) modified. I should like to ask the minister what the modification is. I do not have a cross reference. If the modification is not of substance then I have no objection, but I should like to have some clarification concerning what change has been made here.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I do not know if my comment will meet the point of the hon. member, but I am advised that this
[Mr. Aiken.J
section concerning disposition of appeals is similar to present section 100(5).


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, the answer is very simple. I do not want to appear to be butting in, but is it not a fact that the modification is in respect of a changing of numbers. The figure 180 is being exchanged for something else. This was the explanation given to me of the meaning of the modification in many instances.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I am advised that the words "other than an appeal to which section 180 applies" is not in the original section and that these words have been added.
Clause 1, section 177 agreed to.
On clause 1-section 178: Court may order payment of tax, etc.


Mr. Howe:: Mr. Chairman, I am wondering why in section 178 (2) the amount is $2,500. Is there a particular cut-off area with regard to the amount? Why is there an arbitrary amount of $2,500 in this clause?


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is anything new here; the point was raised before. Indeed this has already been amended in the Income Tax Act with respect to the Tax Review Board.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Right.


Albert Béchard: The committee will recall that amount was raised from $1,000 or $1,500 to $2,500 following a suggestion made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Goode).


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The piece of paper containing the amendment was handed to him.


Albert Béchard: No, it was following a suggestion by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta and in the tax appeal board legislation this amount of $1,000 or $1,500-I do not remember exactly-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: 


Albert Béchard: -was raised to $2,500 and the Crown has to pay the costs win or lose.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that a very fine point was raised concerning whether it was within the authority of the minister to put forward such a proposal, under the Federal Court Act, and I have not received a very satisfactory answer to that question. As you recall, Mr. Chairman, I used this particular clause as the reference in respect of a point I was making concerning discretion as to cost. My argument was turned down because it might impose another charge on the Crown. The Chairman, when comparing it with this section, found that somehow or other a mandatory direction as in this clause under discussion was not of the same category. I followed his argument. I did not share his reasons and I do not share his opinion. I am particularly conversant with this thing. The hon. member for Bona-venture is quite correct when he states that this was changed in the Justice Committee at the time the tax
November 30, 1971

review board was under consideration. However, a serious point of procedure was involved and we were considering this very item. I hope on an appropriate occasion I can come back to the Chair to get what I consider to be a more logical decision.


William Marvin Howe: Mr. Chairman, I am not a lawyer, but I am not convinced there should be a sum in here at all. If the minister should make a mistake, bring someone in for appeal and then find that the individual wins the case, why should an arbitrary figure of $2,500 apply. The case might involve $5,000. Probably the lawyers have some particular reason for an arbitrary amount, but I do not understand why an amount has to be placed in here at all. If the government is wrong it should pay the expenses of the case.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, I understand as well as the hon. member that it was not necessary to mention this amount of $2,500 and cases could involve $100 million or $200 million, but the government decided to mention an amount and set it as $2,500.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In any case.
Mr. Bechard In any case, yes.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Win or lose.


Albert Béchard: As I said a while ago, whether the taxpayer wins or loses, the Crown has to pay the costs.

Clause 1, sections 178 and 179 agreed to.
On clause 1-section 180: Appeals to Federal Court of Appeal.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I see there is a salutary change in some of the philosophy of giving notice to taxpayers. Section 180 is entirely new. It constitutes a departure. There had been a rather regrettable practice in the past in respect of the time of the filing of a notice. It was to run from the moment of the issuance of a document here in Ottawa, whether the taxpayer lived in Lilloo-et, British Columbia or in Come-by-Chance, Newfoundland. Now, I see a much better practice has been adopted and the time shall run from the receipt of a registered notice by mail, which will get there in due course, and there will be evidence of service. I think this is perfectly alright. Even if they do not go to double registered mail, the registered mail in the ordinary course of delivery would be within so many days. This is much better, but may I ask the reason for the distinction between (a) and (b).
In (a) there is mailing by registered mail of a notice to a party who institutes an appeal. Under (b) it is mailing of notice to the registered Canadian charitable organization or registered amateur athletic association under subsection 168(1), and there is a period of 10 days. Why should the particular association be precluded from the protection of service by registered mail as compared with another taxpayer? It seems to me that a charity or an athletic association should be entitled to the same protection as is
Income Tax Act
any other organization or any other taxpayer. To allow a judge of the court of appeal to vary the time because of certain circumstances may simply mean that the organization or person in question will have to put out an extra $250 or perhaps $400 to pay for counsel to appear before a judge of a court of appeal on an extempore application for an order for leave or an order to extend the time, either for filing the appeal or for doing whatever is necessary.
It is very nice to give this relief, but it must be realized that great expense is involved for any organization which may be at the other end of the country. It seems to me that it would have been quite simple under (b) to maintain the mailing of the notice by registered mail to the registered Canadian charitable organization or amateur athletic association.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, I think that the hon. member for Edmonton West should refer to section 168(1) where there is a specific mention as to "registered mail". [English]
-may by registered mail.

There is no more discrimination against this association than against other taxpayers since section 180(l)(b) provides that:
from the mailing of notice to the registered Canadian charitable organization or registered Canadian amateur athletic association under subsection 168(1)-
Subsection 168(1) reads as follows:

-the minister may by registered mail give notice to the registered Canadian charitable organization-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I will accept the explanation given by the hon. member. However, I find, as has been pointed out time and time again in a number of briefs, that this idea of cross reference rather than specific mention does lead people astray, as I was led astray here. It is simple to say that this is a notice that is required under section 168(1), and I accept that, but strangely enough we are dealing with a section which tells us we are to file an appeal within 10 days by registered mail. What has unfortunately led us astray is a complete reliance on the cross reference. I apologize if I was just an ordinary citizen here and not the most prescient of lawyers, but you can see where this type of drafting leads us.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, I would like to add just a few words to say that in view of the thickness of this bill, it was to avoid adding additional pages to it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, but this makes the bill more confusing.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I was about to rise to speak to subsection (2) with a slightly different complaint. The complaint is that serving anybody a notice by registered mail and expecting anyone to take legal action within 10 days is completely unreasonable. The minister is given 30 days under section 168 (2) (f) and he has 30 days from the day he has mailed
10018

November 30, 1971
Income Tax Act
the notice. Having taken part in a good many situations of this kind, not all of them tax cases but appeals of different kinds, I feel that to have 10 days from the day notice is given by the minister in which to get an appeal filed is completely unreasonable. For example, notice can be mailed on a Monday or Tuesday to a point some distance away from Ottawa, and the notice may not reach the party concerned before four or five days at the very best, even when it is sent by registered mail. If it is either mailed or comes in on the weekend, you have lost the weekend. If a person happens to be away when the notice arrives, more time is lost. I do not know of any law in the world that requires a person to stay home waiting for the Minister of National Revenue to mail him a notice to which he has to respond in two or three days after the minister may have taken a year to reply.
I know there is a saving clause, and this can be brought forward, that a person may apply to a court of appeal or a judge thereof for further time, but for the average citizen it is a costly and time consuming procedure. A person may not have a lawyer available to file a notice of appeal when he is suddenly faced with a decision, and 10 days will have gone by. This is almost impossible. Even in the ordinary courts of most of the provinces in this country, you have 10 days from the day on which a summons or other document is served on you to put in an appearance in court, and that is 10 days after it is proven that the document has come into your hands. That 10 days is altogether too short a period, even in ordinary litigation.
I think it is absolutely unreasonable to expect anyone to file a notice of appeal in a federal court within 10 days after the minister has mailed a notice here in Ottawa. I would say that most of the time it would be an absolute physical impossibility. I protest against this strongly. I cannot see any reason for cutting the time so short. What difference is it going to make? Give the public a break and let them have 30 days in which to file their appeals. What difference is it going to make to the minister or to anybody else, if he has taken six months or a year to come to his decision? Now, he is going to turn around and require that the next day the person concerned must rush into court. I object to this time period. I would like to hear whether or not someone concurs in my belief.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, having listened to the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken), I have to agree with him that the time period is too short. However, I must tell the hon. member, since we might run short of time, that we could undertake to study his suggestion along with the other amendments he has submitted earlier today.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: That would be quite satisfactory, Mr. Chairman.


Russell Clayton Honey: Section 180 will stand. The committee will now proceed to the consideration of Part XV. The first section under Part XV is section 220. Shall section 220 carry?
On clause 1-Section 220: Minister's duty.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, since Part XV covers a fair number of sections are we to be given leeway to make comments at the start which might be applicable to all sections, or are we to wait until the particular sections come up on which we wish to make specific comments?


Russell Clayton Honey: The Chair suggests, and I think the committee will agree, that we should follow the practice established in the committee heretofore, so that general remarks might be made on all of Part XV, Is that the wish of the committee?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The point I want to raise deals with the power given to the government under section 239(2), at the top of page 550, which reads:
Every person who is charged with an offence described by subsection (1) may, at the election of the Attorney General of Canada, be prosecuted upon indictment and, if convicted, is, in addition to any penalty otherwise provided, liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years and not less than 2 months.
This gives the government rather awesome power in that it can pick and choose as to whether those who are delinquent in the payment of taxes are going to suffer jail penalties in addition to fines. I think everybody in this chamber is well aware of the fairly recent case concerning two Canadians, one of whom was treated in such a way that he did face a jail sentence, and the other in such a way that he faced only a fine. Both these gentlemen were very prominent in Canadian life. One has died since the charge against him was laid, and that disposes of his case except in so far as it relates to his estate.
I realize that this provision has been in the law for some time, but that should not prevent us from asking whether it is a power that any government or any minister of the Crown should enjoy. If the minister decides on a certain procedure, then the person involved, if convicted, goes to jail. I wonder if the parliamentary secretaries who are now carrying the burden of the debate can reply to this fundamental point?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, may I continue with this point to which reference has been made? I, for one, refuse to accept any suggestion in any act that it is a minister of the Crown who is to determine that somebody is to go to jail, without the option of a fine. Under section 239(2) every person who is charged with an offence described by subsection (1):
-may, at the election of the Attorney General of Canada, be prosecuted upon indictment and, if convicted, is, in addition to any penalty otherwise provided, liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years and not less than 2 months.
It is unfortunate that the Minister of National Revenue is not present. I would have liked to have had a minister of the Crown, responsible for the administration of the act, explain why this provision, which I know has been in the act for a long time, should continue to appear in it. I think it is a most reprehensible principle that a minister of the Crown should have the right to determine that a man shall go to jail. This is something for a court to determine.
Under section 239(1) if a case is proceeded with by way of summary conviction, there is provision for the alternative of a fine "of not less than 25 per cent and not more than double the amount of the tax that was sought to be
November 30, 1971

evaded," or both the fine as described and imprisonment "for a term not exceeding 2 years." In this instance, it is a properly constituted court that determines whether a man is to go to jail or merely be fined. Yet by proceeding by way of indictment, if convicted a man is liable to a jail sentence, and this on the decision of a political individual, the Attorney General of Canada, or of some faceless bureaucrat behind him who does not have to answer for his decision. This may be the Deputy Minister or the Director of Prosecutions, who does not have to answer for his decision or recommendation to proceed by way of indictment, and the facts being what they are, if the taxpayer either pleads guilty or is convicted, and I am not trying to exculpate him at all, he must go to jail. True enough, he can be fined; but he must go to jail.


Robert Jardine McCleave: That is barbaric.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Who is the one who
decides to play such ducks and drakes and why, Mr. Chairman? Is there some pecuniary yardstick that is applied? The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants, my colleague, referred to a recent case. The amount was large; but I can honestly tell you that a few years ago out in my part of the country a number of taxpayers were involved in an equally blatant and apparent fraud. I am not prejudging the Toronto case. Let us say that there is an alleged fraud. Nevertheless, in the case to which I refer, shortly after the proceedings started the defendants pleaded guilty. It was all arranged, it seemed. The court affixed a penalty, pursuant to what is now section 239(1), and it cost the parties dearly for their years of syphoning off profits during a building boom. Actually, one firm almost went into bankruptcy, because the penalty cleaned them out. There had been some skimming off, but nobody went to jail, Mr. Chairman. There was no proceeding by way of indictment. And why was there not, Mr. Chairman? Was the reason religion, or was the reason political persuasion. Is it by reason of the status in the community of the individuals that the decision is made one way or the other, or is it made by reason of the fact that somebody might be a political force and might be friendly to the government?
Let met read section 239(l)(d), the basket clause:
(d) wilfully, in any manner, evade or attempted to evade, compliance with this Act or payment of taxes imposed by this Act,. . .
It is an offence under section 239(l)(d) to fail to file a return when requested. Failure to file is caught by that basket clause. It is as such a failure to comply with this act. I have no quarrel with the offence being subject to summary conviction. It is up to the magistrate to judge in any particular case. I know of many instances where an individual refused to file an income tax return after being requested to do so. Section 235 now says that every person who has failed to make a return as and when reqired by regulation under subsection 215(4), by regulation under section 221, and so on, is liable to a penalty. This is not governed entirely by statute. This matter comes under regulations that are passed by the governor in council under the authority of section 221 of this act.


An hon. Member:: But the matter is scrutinized.
Income Tax Act


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I do not object to the fact that there is an offence. That particular offence is caught up by the basket clause. A good many other offences are created under this act in cases where you do not comply with a requirement of the act or of the regulations. Those offences may merit summary conviction. I accept that. Yet, if the Attorney General of Canada shall decide otherwise, and he has only the good Lord to answer to under this act, he can proceed against the taxpayer by way of indictment. It is he who decides; the taxpayer may have no defence. After all, you either file an income tax return or you do not. There is no way of getting around that. Whether or not you should pay tax in a stated amount may be a matter of honest dispute; but your failure to file a return is a fact and, so, one is guilty of failing to file a return and proceedings may be by way of indictment. Very likely they would not be, but instituting them is within the power of the minister. A conviction means a minimum of two months in jail.
You know, this is arbitrary power. It is only the court that should determine whether a person shall go to jail; but this discretion is not given to the court. If the court of first instance awards too lengthy a jail term, the taxpayer has the right to appeal, as a common thief would, as a bank robber would or as any other criminal would. Yet, under section 239(2) of the Income Tax Act, he must go to jail. Mr. Chairman, that should not be. I repeat, that should not be. Section 239(2) should be stricken from this act. If the penalties are not great enough under section 239(1) to take into account the higher level that is provided for in section 239(2), then let us amend section 239(1). But, for goodness sake, let a court of law decide whether a man goes to jail or not, and not the minister or one of his faceless individuals. I do not mean that in any derogatory sense, but they are not identifiable. There is none amongst them who must answer for his actions.


Gérald Laniel: The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants rises on a question of privilege.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I misled the House. I referred to the fact that at the end of the indictment procedure the person convicted might go to jail for a day or a number of hours. As a matter of fact it is set forth very clearly that it is not less than two months. I apologize for my inadvertence.


Gérald Laniel: Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 40 to inform the House that questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Selkirk-The Canadian Economy; the hon. member for Winnipeg North-Manpower-Availability of Jobs in Thompson and Sudbury; the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby- Regional Economic Expansion.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I want to raise the same point. Previously in the debate on this bill, the question was raised about double jeopardy for people who may be considered by the tax department not to have paid their tax or filed their return. The penalty is additional tax under a previous section which we have already discussed. The second penalty under Section 239 is a fine of
24725-6i

November 30, 1971
Income Tax Act
not less than 25 per cent and not more than double the amount of tax that was sought to be evaded. Finally, we have Section 239(2) which provides a jail sentence without the option of a fine.
It seems to me that this subsection is unreasonable and in favour of tax administration. Among other things, we have been trying to give the taxpayer a reasonable break as against the all powerful Income Tax Act. There is no doubt in the world that the procedures and penalties under this act are greater than under almost any other federal legislation. You can prove the mailing of a notice from the department by affidavit evidence given in court saying that the minister has sent out a notice. That is absolute evidence that the notice was sent out without anybody appearing to say so. I think Section 239(2) is not only overpowering against the citizen, but it leaves a political tool in the hands of the government in a case where such a penalty was never intended. We have here the option for the Attorney General of Canada to decide whether to proceed against an accused person by way of summary conviction. This would give the provincial judge the right to determine the sentence, whether it be fine or jail, depending upon how he sees the circumstances, and would give the right to the minister to make that decision. We feel this is wrong.
It is easy for inspectors and investigators going through the taxpayer's papers to talk to the taxpayer and other people and come to the conclusion that perhaps this person has fraudulently misrepresented his case and tried to deprive the government of taxes. It is absolutely no part of normal justice in this country that the prosecution shall prejudge how the case shall be disposed of by the courts, but that is what this particular section allows. It leaves this tool in the hands of the government. They may say to a taxpayer that they are going to proceed by way of indictment, and they may say to the judge that the taxpayer has to go to jail for two months. It does not leave the judge the option of hearing the defendant's case. Surely, this is fundamental justice, that the defendant may bring forward certain facts for the court's consideration in determining sentence. In this case when the individual has been found guilty there is no option for the judge to decide to impose a fine. There is no alternative but to send the accused to jail or to acquit him.
This section, first of all, takes away the right of the courts to determine sentence and, second, takes away the right of individuals to place a case before the courts in mitigation of sentence. This gives a third kick at the cat, a third penalty that the Department of National Revenue can impose upon the taxpayer. This is the final and most severe, that he can be sent to jail.
As I said earlier, there is always the other possibility, that we are placing in the hands of the government, of the Attorney General, and of the Attorney General's officers a very powerful instrument and that is the right to say to this individual, "We are only going to prosecute you under summary conviction and you may be fined", or to say to him "We are going to ask for procedure by indictment and you may go to jail". It is too powerful a tool in a tax situation. It is open to abuse at a lower level within the department because in a lot of cases I presume that the Attorney General does not make the decision. This section leaves it open to the investigator or someone above him to

make this decision and to hold out a threat of some sort against the accused. If he does not squawk too hard, if he pays his penalty and admits everything the case will not proceed by way of indictment.
While this is not likely to happen, it is not likely that any attorney general would take such a position, the power does exist and it is the most dangerous power open to the government, the power to discriminate between one citizen and another. There may be reasons for which a certain individual who is friendly to the government, who has been a regular contributor out of the money he has saved from taxes, who has been a helper of the government- and I am not referring now to any particular government-might be dealt with more lightly than another person who did not happen to be known to the government or to the attorney-general.
While we do not have much complaint about the remainder of this administrative and enforcement portion of the bill, we feel this is the appropriate point for a reconsideration of 239(2). It is no use bringing the matter up a year from now or two years from now by way of a private member's bill. The time to do it is now, while we are considering a new piece of tax legislation. I, therefore, suggest there should be a reasonable modification of this subsection before we proceed with the remainder of the sections.


Robert Jardine McCleave: While the ministry is considering the points my hon. friend has raised, I should like to inquire about two matters which were put forward by the Canadian Bar Association in its brief dated August 20, 1971. The first concerns section 231(2). The Bar Association made this point:
We suggest there is no need for an ex parte application as the minister already has the documents involved. The question is whether or not he should give them back within 120 days. Surely, the taxpayer should be able to present his views to the court as to why the documents should be returned, particularly where they can be photostated.
The second point arises out of something which appears later in that particular section, in 231(8). The Bar Association made the point:
The appointment of the hearing officer by the tax review board is a welcome change if the hearing officer is someone other than a member of the Department of National Revenue. If members of the department are still to be appointed they might as well be appointed by the minister in the first place.
I would ask whoever is to reply whether it is the intention of the government to appoint someone other than a member of the Department of National Revenue in connection with the provisions of 231(8).


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: With regard to the second point the hon. member raised, it is my understanding the intention would be to appoint someone other than an official in the category he mentioned.
With respect to the first point, I should like to have it taken under advisement. We shall attempt to make some further response, possibly later this evening, at which time we would also be in a better position to respond to the argument put forward by the hon. member for Parry
November 30, 1971

Sound-Muskoka. Perhaps those subsections could be allowed to stand as well.


Gérald Laniel: Is that agreed?


Robert Jardine McCleave: I think that really means we should stand 231 and 239.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Somehow or other we started off on a different tack by saying we could discuss generally, on 220, anything from 220 to 247. I think it is quite improper to keep prodding the committee by saying "Shall section 220 pass?" It seems to me it should be open. We should complete the general discussion and then pick up the items. Or else we should proceed to discuss section 220 and stay away from general discussion.


Gaston Clermont: Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that we government members are the ones who asked you to call subsection 220. We accept the argument put forward by the hon. member for Edmonton West that the member in the Chair at the outset of the sitting on Bill C-259 heard the suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Edmonton West-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It was not my
suggestion.


Gaston Clermont: -I believe it was rather the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) who suggested that Part XV be discussed as a whole, but the Chairman did not give us any instructions as to the order in which the subsections should be called.


Gérald Laniel: In answer to the hon. member, it was understood that each subsection would be dealt in a general way, then passed separately.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: At the end.


Gérald Laniel: At the end.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Moreover, Mr. Chairman, we have questions to ask the minister, especially on the points raised by my colleague and myself about subsection 239 and again about subsection 231.
We may find others also. For pity's sake, let us limit ourselves to the general discussion.


Gérald Laniel: Is there agreement on the part of the committee?


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, having heard the case so ably stated by the three opposition members, that is the hon. members for Parry Sound-Muskoka, Halifax-East Hants and Edmonton West (Messrs. Aiken, McCleave and Lambert), concerning section 239(2), I agree with what they said about the powers granted ministers of the Crown to imprison or not Mr. So-and-so, and I believe that the committee members, and especially the hon. member for Edmonton West and the two members of the official opposition who participated in the debate, are well aware of the fact that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) is a compassionate person and know that he would not impose such a sanction on a fellow-citizen.
Income Tax Act
As we are discussing the whole of Part XV and have stood some sections in order to study them after supper, I believe that by then we shall have found the necessary answers. In fact, we have them already. No doubt we could also stand section 239(2) for later discussion.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I thank the parliamentary secretary for his remarks. I am sure that the bill will have improved following the introduction of an amendment by the government, after supper.
Having disposed of this matter for the time being, perhaps I might again point out that section 231(15) brings about something new and I believe that it improves the legislation. At page 542 of this bill, one can read the following:
Rights of person whose affairs are investigated.
In the past, it was known that the officials of the Department of National Revenue could sequester the property of an individual and, in his absence, conduct an inquiry. But today, we have a new provision which, I think, amounts to an improvement. And I resume the quotation:
Any person whose affairs are investigated in the course of an inquiry authorized under subsection (7) is entitled to be present and to be represented by counsel-
... or his agent.
We can derive a certain degree of satisfaction from this. I do not include myself with those who have consistently congratulated the government, during this debate, for the changes made in the Act, but I thank the government for this improvement.


Gérald Laniel: Shall section 220 carry?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I suppose I must rise or the Deputy Chairman will operate on the piston principle that a section must pass or must not pass.


Mr. Faulkner:: Try voting on it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. member says- I do not know wh/ether he is still a parliamentary secretary-we should try voting on it. As a lawyer, I wish he would turn his undoubted talents to dealing with the difficulties in this law.


Mr. Murphy:: He is not a lawyer.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: So I am told he is not a
lawyer.


James Hugh Faulkner: That is a band of people I would never be associated with.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Then, I will take it all back; but I must say that the hon. member's constituents are thereby the losers. I think I can say that in regard to matters of this kind.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is a bachelor.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But not of laws. When his constituents complain to him about some of the difficulties in this law, which undoubtedly there will be, I trust he will derive a great deal of satisfaction from

November 30, 1971
Income Tax Act
saying, "Well, I said nothing on the bill; I knew all these things". The hon. member has been the recipient, as I have, of briefs submitted by the Canadian Bar Association and analyses of this legislation by any one or more of half a dozen of the leading chartered accountants establishments in this country. He too has had letters almost without limit from constituents and others drawing his attention to this or that particular difficulty. But all this seems to have gone for nought.
I suppose the hon. member feels that all of these representation shad nothing to do with the content of Bill C-259 because they were made following the publication of the bill. I am not aware that many of the amendments were not already in the pipeline, so to speak, within the administration be it of the Department of Justice, the legal section of the Department of Finance or the legal section of the Department of National Revenue.
The input by hon. gentlemen in regard to the representations made on Bill C-259 is not particularly manifest. At least one can say that those of us of the opposition who have paid particular attention to these sections have been putting before the government as forcefully as we can, with our limited talents-


Mr. Langlois:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I suggest to the hon. member for Chicoutimi that he will sprain his rather ample wrist and shoulder, not in patting his desk but in patting himself on the back for being so assiduous in calling "Carried" and also in failing to recognize, as we do, the limitation of our talents when they are applied to an examination of the income tax law. This is particularly so since the hon. gentleman was not one of those who availed himself of the opportunity of attending sessions held by the Institute of Chartered Accountants which were a great help to those who did attend. How can anyone who failed to attend those sessions, and who does not have much knowledge of what appears between the covers of this massive volume, insist that sections be carried? It is merely rote, an attempt to put a rubber-stamp on those matters that one must understand.
I should like to go back to the point I raised prior to section 245 strictly with regard to administration and enforcement, and again with particular reference to section 221 which authorizes the Governor in Council to make recommendations. I wonder how many mambers know the volume of regulations made under the Income Tax Act. I am sure there are few, if any, present in this chamber who have any idea of the thick volume, printed on fine paper, containing various regulations. I am rather surprised that I am urged by members on both sides of the House to pass this or that section rather hurriedly so as to make progress. The hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth is a great one to talk about progress, but he has not the slightest idea not only of what is in this text but of the regulations. For the benefit of the hon. member for Chicoutimi, let me go to section 235 which provides as follows:
Every person who has failed to make a return as and when required by regulation under section 215(4)-
And so on. This particular text in the bill does not tell hon. members what return shall be filed; rather, it is
defined by regulation that the Governor in Council has passed what heretofore need not necessarily be published.


Paul Langlois: That is nothing new.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Just because one law has transgressed on the rights of others is no reason all laws should do it.


Paul Langlois: Come on. You went through this in 1961 and 1962.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: And we made changes. The hon. member can say we have been through this, but the volume has increased. If the hon. member had followed my speeches in the opposition since 1963 when I left the chair, he would know how often I have spoken against sweeping regulations. I put it to the hon. member that it takes a lot of time to study the regulations and laws. However, by the time I had had experience with the Department of National Revenue I became cognizant of all this. But one speaks up, and I hope we are able to make some progress. I am really concerned. It may be that some time when the government gets around to it we will have the joint committee on statutory instruments which may be in a position to consider the regulations, provided they are not exempt under the act relating to statutory instruments and provided they are not exempt from passing through the fine screen of that committee.
Also, that committee cannot act until there is a change in the rules of the House concerning what is meant by an affirmative resolution, what is meant by a negative resolution and how it shall be handled. There is no provision in our House rules for that. So for the moment this question is for consideration some time in the indefinite future. The intentions are good, but time and time again the road to hades has been paved with good intentions. I suppose this is one of the worst cliches, but it is factual. In any event, let us look at section 221. It provides:
The Governor in Council may make regulations
(a)	prescribing anything that, by this act, is to be prescribed-
That is as illuminating as the snow clouds that have hung over Ottawa today. The section continues:
-or is to be determined or regulated by regulation.
That leads us precisely nowhere. They can make regulations for something that has been regulated by regulation. I suppose there are some sections which say the minister "may by regulation," or it may be that by regulation taxpayers will be required to file returns and therefore the minister is authorized to make this regulation. That might be the explanation of this section. The next part I believe is quite right:
(b)	prescribing the evidence required to establish facts relevant to assessments under this act,
I think that is so, provided it is published and within the knowledge of the taxpayer. The next paragraph provides:

November 30, 1971

(c)	to facilitate the assessment of tax where deductions or exemptions of a taxpayer have changed in a taxation year,
I agree with that. Then we have this paragraph:
(d)	requiring any class of persons to make information returns respecting any class of information required in connection with assessments under this act,
That one becomes a little more difficult. In any event, we come again to what I consider to be the bugbear. It is something that is built in and which gives a discretion to the minister and the Governor in Council and allows no review. It will be very interesting to hear the argument of ministers and the reaction of the Attorney General of Canada to paragraph (j) of subsection (1) of section 221 which reads:
(j) generally to carry out the purposes and provisions of this act.
Who has the discretion to determine whether a regulation generally is to carry out the purposes and provisions of this act? If a regulation were to be challenged in the Federal Court appeal section, I put it to the hon. gentleman that the court would refuse to adjudicate because it will not substitute, as a general rule, its discretion for that of the government or of an official. This is precisely one of those instances where the greatest injustice can be done to a taxpayer. Remember, the taxpayer is not standing there almost naked, almost cold, ready to be plucked and sheared of everything he possesses; this is not the position of the taxpayer.
My colleague says that all these things have been done to him. They have, but that is not the position of the taxpayer. The taxpayer is an ordinary citizen of the country. He may be a corporation, an individual or a partnership. Whatever is the legal entity in existence, he is the taxpayer and he has rights: they are not all on one side. But here we have regulations "generally to carry out the purposes and provisions of this Act."
Fortunately, the government do not include in this act what they were attempting to do in an act which I believe dealt with sales finance companies. There is the famous provision in the regulations section authorizing the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the minister to make regulations generally which in the opinion of the minister would properly carry put the purposes and provisions of the act. I have seen it described elsewhere as "generally for the proper carrying out of the purposes and provisions of this Act." That just cannot be. A court must determine that matter. One cannot have that subjective opportunity built in authorizing, shall we say, the author of the regulations to judge whether they are correct or not.
As I have said, it would be very interesting to have the Attorney General of Canada appear before the committee on statutory instruments, when it next meets, to see whether he would insist that either he or his colleagues, whatever may be the political stripe of the administration, judge whether or not a regulation shall be generally to carry out the purposes and provisions of this act.
There are those who would say that once Parliament has granted the authority to a ministry to make regulations, that is an authority which cannot be removed by
Income Tax Act
Parliament. This was argued at the time of the passage of the Statutory Instruments Act: it was said that Parliament did not have the power to revoke the authority to make regulations. Here we come to a real question of principle and I put it to you, Mr. Chairman, that this House and the other place, having passed a bill authorizing the making of regulations, can at any time, by proper action, amend, delete or revoke any such regulation. It has the right to alter that authority.
But on the side of the ministry there are those who insist that once the authority to make regulations has been given, it is gone and forever has been transferred from parliament to the administration. That is something that members of the House must never accept and never allow, even for reasons of expediency. It is much better to protect the right of individuals and of this House than to fall down in adoration of the false god of administrative or governmental efficiency.
I want to complete my remarks now, because after eight o'clock I want to discuss the particular matters raised in sections 239 and 232 and then we can proceed with sections 245 to 247, and if we have time I have suggested to the government House leader that we could proceed with section 248 which is a most voluminous interpretation section; it covers some 16 pages of text and might possibly provide a fair amount of progress.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I have one question remaining on section 221 (2) which concerns me considerably. It reads:
No regulation made under this act has effect until it has been published in the Canada Gazette but, when so published, a regulation shall, if it so provides, be effective with reference to a period before it was published.
This afternoon and on previous days we have raised the problems of double jeopardy and heavy penalties in connection with offences under this act. But here is a situation where a regulation can be published in the Canada Gazette and shall be effective at a time before it was published. This indicates to me that one could be convicted in a court and sent to jail for two months, which is the minimum under the indictment section we have just finished discussing, for breaking a regulation which had not even been published. This seems to me to be a terrible provision in any act of the Parliament of Canada.
The second point is that the section seems unreasonable in itself-not just with regard to the penalty-unless the limitation is to the time at which the regulation is actually passed, because if this provision is taken at face value, with no limitation or exception, a regulation could be passed requiring a person to file a return of a certain type, in a certain manner or at a certain time, that regulation being effective two months before it was published. A person then could be in breach of the regulation without its having been in existence. So I think that subsections (1) and (2) of section 221 deserve very serious consideration, particularly in light of the other matters which the ministry has asked to stand for further consideration.
May I call it six o'clock. Mr. Chairman?


Gérald Laniel: Before rising may I point out to the committee that the hon. member for Edmonton West mentioned that he would like to discuss.

November 30, 1971
Income Tax Act
after eight o'clock, section 248 which, as hon. members know, has been carried as amended.


Albert Béchard: I apologize, Mr. Chairman, for my absentmindedness. What section, did you say, has been carried?


Gérald Laniel: I explained to the committee that the hon. member for Edmonton West wanted to discuss section 248. It so happens that section 248 has been amended and carried on November 10. There is no question of a debate; I merely wanted to inform the committee.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, if such is the case, there is nothing to add.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: With reference to the point of order, I think it was merely a suggestion of the hon. member for Edmonton West that this would be the last section to be discussed in the event that we completed everything else prior to that time. We will see that he is so advised.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Gérald Laniel: Order, please. When the committee rose at six o'clock, section 220 was being considered.


Gaston Clermont: Mr. Chairman, it had been suggested this afternoon that sections 172, 174 and 180 be allowed to stand.
The government intends to introduce an amendment to section 172, but it is impossible for us to do it tonight in the two official languages.
As for section 174, the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) has proposed an amendment and the government would also have an amendment to propose.
Regarding section 180, the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka had pointed out that the period of ten days was too short; a minister will move an amendment to that section stating that this period be 30 days.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary secretary having indicated that the government has two amendments to sections 174 and 180, I would be pleased to hear them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On sections 172 and 174.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: No, 174 and 180. Section 172 is to stand. I am satisfied with the amendment to section 180 which would extend the time from ten days to 30 days. I have not yet seen the intended amendment to section 174, but if it goes some way to meet the objection I raised this afternoon I would most certainly be happy to consider it.
[The Assistant Deputy Chairman.]


Gérald Laniel: Order. For mere procedural reasons, I think that the committee should stand consideration of section 220 to get back to sections 174 and 180.

Does the committee agree to stand section 220 at this time and revert to section 174?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause I, section 220, stands.
On clause I-section 174: Reference to Federal Court or Tax Review Board of common questions.


Gaston Clermont: Mr. Speaker, the amendment the government will be moving in a few minutes in connection with section 180, page 451, is as follows:
That section 180 as set forth in clause 1 of the said Bill be amended by striking out line 15 on page 451 and substituting the following:
'Court within 30 days from'
The amendment the department would like to put before the House in connection with section 174, page 446, is as follows:
That section 174 as set forth in clause 1 of the said bill- be amended by striking out lines 40 to 46 on page 446 and substituting the following:
Reference 174. (1) Where the minister is of the opinion that to Federal	a question of law. fact or mixed law and fact
Court or	arising out of one and the same transaction or
Tax Review occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences Board of	is common to assessments in respect of two or
common	more taxpayers, he may apply to the Tax Review
questions	Board or the Federal Court-Trial Division for a
determination of the question.'


Gérald Laniel: The Minister of Agriculture moves:
That section 174 as set forth in clause 1 of the said bill- be amended by striking out lines 40 to 46 on page 446 and substituting the following:
Reference 174. (1) Where the minister is of the opinion that to Federal	a question of law, fact or mixed law and fact
Court or	arising out of one and the same transaction or
Tax Review	occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences
Board of	is common to assessments in respect of two or
common	more taxpayers, he may apply to the Tax Review
questions	Board or the Federal Court-Trial Division for a
determination of the question.'


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that we could go immediately to section 180. The amendment is clear and understandable and exactly meets the point I raised this afternoon. I think we should pass it immediately. I then should like to discuss further section 174.


Gérald Laniel: Does the committee agree to stand section 174 at this time and proceed with the amendment to section 180?
November 30, 1971


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On clause 1-section 180: Appeals to Federal Court of Appeal.


Gérald Laniel: The Minister of Agriculture moves:
That section 180 as set forth in clause 1 of the said bill be amended by striking out line 15 on page 451 and substituting the following:
'Court within 30 days from'


Gérald Laniel: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Olson) agreed to.
Clause 1, section 180, as amended, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Does the committee wish to revert to section 174?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On clause 1-section 174: Reference to Federal Court or Tax Review Board of common questions


Gérald Laniel: Shall the amendment to section 174 carry?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the intricacies through which we have just gone. The point I want to make is similar to the one I made this afternoon. I am referring to the situation in which taxpayers who live in different parts of the country may be competing in the sense that they are involved with the Department of National Revenue. Those taxpayers may be facing certain problems. Despite the proposed amendment, the minister, under this section, could create considerable difficulty for those taxpayers especially if he were to ask, say, the taxpayer in Halifax to compete with the taxpayer in Hamilton, or the taxpayer in Hamilton to compete with the man in Vancouver.
The question that arises is, where do you hold your court, where do you take your witnesses and your lawyers, since the provinces have different rules in this regard? And what lawyers are you allowed to take? That is the point I thought I had argued with a reasonable amount of intelligence and diligence. I should like to hear from my learned friends opposite on this question.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray) explained this section very clearly this afternoon and it deals with very specific cases. As to the fears entertained by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave), who is asking where the cases will be heard, I would say that the Court will have to determine that.


Robert Jardine McCleave: With all respect to my hon. friend, that is not a satisfactory answer. It is within the initiative of the minister to take the case wherever he wants to take it. If he wants to take it to the court in Vancouver, that would cause great difficulty for the person in Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto or Halifax. I asked that question because I hoped we could avoid this situation. I hoped the commit-
Income Tax Act
tee might contain within it a Solomon who could bring forward an answer that would solve the objection.
It is the option that probably is the worst feature of the section. The minister may be a very humane and sensible person and he may decide that he will not put taxpayers in the far corners of the country to the expense of travelling great distances. On the other hand, he might be a kind of obdurate bureaucrat who is full of self-importance and decide the matter in such a way as to have people flocking to one centre from the far reaches of the country.
I was hoping there might be a better answer than that to this problem because I do not think we should impose on taxpayers of the country immense financial burdens in this regard. It would not be fair to ask a man to spend $2,000 merely to fight a claim worth $100. I do not think arfybody should be put to that sort of trial. That is why I asked the question.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, I believe the hon. member seems to think that even if the minister is the Minister of National Revenue he is not a human being, who is aware of what happens in the life of any taxpayer. I believe that if this man, who as I say is a human being, he abuses his powers, it will be up to the Court to decide where the cases will be heard.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I think there is probably a simple answer to this problem and it is this. Many elections in Canada have been fought on the issue of whether the people who formed the government at the time were reasonable human beings. Be that as it may, perhaps five or six people will go down the drain in the process of having this question determined; that is why I raised this very serious matter. I do not think the government should put people in a country as vast as Canada through an exercise such as that.
I give the government credit for bringing in new provisions. If we are trying to help people solve their problems and not add to their expenses, I suggest we should not put them to great expense when they try to determine the pros and cons of any question under a very complex act such as the Income Tax Act and its regulations. I think everybody will agree with that, even though some may disagree with almost everything else I say.
Although some of these provisions are perfectly human, they also give the minister the power to compel people who live perhaps 1,000 miles apart to come to a certain court. If you consider the distance across Canada, there could be three such people. The minister can compel them to unite in some kind of common cause. If they do not want to come, they may send their lawyers. But they are to be bound by the decision that is handed down. That, I think, is wrong. There must be some way in which persons can disunite themselves, so to speak, and take their chances before the Federal Court in their own backyard. I think all we need is a simple amendment along that line.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants as an eminent disciple of Themis under-

November 30, 1971
Income Tax Act
stands the situation, I am sure. For instance, if someone from Halifax which the hon. member knows very well is, let us say, separated from his wife and if the wife is living in Vancouver, or if a merchant sells his business in Halifax and takes up residence in Vancouver, I imagine that it will be necessary to determine if and where proceedings will take place. Obviously if the minister decides that this must be done at a certain place, this to the detriment of the two parties, the Court will be called upon to rule which is the best place. Someone simply has to decide where the proceedings will be held.
If this has happened previously, it could perhaps enlighten us more.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I do not know why the parliamentary should bring in divorce matters, but I can think of cases where that might arise. But let us take the case of salesmen who are provided with company cars and who in Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto or Halifax might be faced with a situation as to the amount to be considered as income under sections which we passed earlier. Is the minister to say to these salesmen that they will be marched into a federal court in Inuvik, Quebec City, or anywhere else in Canada? Are they to be marching there with their laywers? Lawyers cannot easily straddle provincial boundaries. A lawyer is supposed to know something of the law in his own province but unless he pays other Bar fees he is not supposed to know very much of the law in other provinces. Is everybody supposed to march into Quebec City, for example, to appear in a case? Surely it would be a simple thing to have an option for the taxpayer who is picked out by the minister to determine a court case, if the minister says that he does not want to try it on a particular day.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, it must be pointed out to the hon. member and to the members of the committee that the amendment reads as follows:

Where the minister is of the opinion that a question of law, fact or mixed law and fact arising out of one and the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences is common to assessments in respect of two or more taxpayers-

This is a specific case. In my opinion, the hon. member should not lose sight of the facts mentioned in the amendment, because it is thereby provided that it deals with the same transaction common to two individuals.
If I mentioned earlier a matter perhaps of great concern to the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants, it was quite by accident. I did not talk about divorce, but about separation, which is not the same thing altogether.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, to whose learning, as well as that of the hon. member who has just spoken, I pay a great deal of attention thinks that my point has been answered, the point being-
-that a question of law, fact or mixed law and fact arising out of one and the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences is common to assessments-
Our difficulty is that no matter what kind of assurance we are given from across the aisle-those assurances have been given in the past and will be given in the future-no court in the land is bound by the opinion expressed by a minister or parliamentary secretary in this place. Perhaps the most famous example occurred a number of years ago when Mr. St. Laurent made a statement here and the Supreme Court of Canada reversed it. I am sure the right hon. gentleman fully believed what he told the House of Commons.
Since the government has tried to make the point that we made earlier this evening, I will accept the assurance given by my colleague, the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, and my friend the parliamentary secretary that the amendment covers exactly the point that I hoped to prove. In a couple of years from now I hope nobody will say that the member for Halifax-East Hants rose and said, "I told you so".


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I do not think I would go so far as to say that this amendment has answered completely the objections that I and my hon. friend from Halifax-East Hants raised. I think there are still some marginal problems, particularly the one he mentioned of people living a long distance from each other and having to be drawn into one court.
I feel, however, that the central point of the objection has been met by linking all the cases to one series of occurrences or one set of facts. What concerned me this afternoon was the question of people who had no connection with each other except for the accident of fact that they were in the same situation. I expressed my concern about the taxpayer who might find himself involved in an appeal related to some other appeal which had a whiff of scandal about it with which he did not wish to be associated. That point has been covered to some degree by the amendment, and while I am not entirely satisfied with it I appreciate that the effort has been made and I would be prepared to support it.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the hon. member for his willingness to consider the amendment which my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board has read as a way of dealing with the very important point that he raised. I am therefore very pleased to formally move at this time that section 174 as set forth in clause 1 of the said bill be amended by striking out lines 40 to 46 on page 446 and substituting the following. Mr. Chairman, perhaps we can take it as read in the wording used by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board.


Gérald Laniel: Order. I should bring to the attention of the minister that the amendment he proposes to move has already been moved by the Minister of Agriculture.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. I was not able to be in the House at the beginning of this evening's session and I was advised by my colleagues that it had not been formally moved.


Gérald Laniel: Shall the amendment carry?
Amendment (Mr. Olson) agreed to.

November 3Ch 1971


Gérald Laniel: Shall section 174 as amended carry?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, another point was raised in connection with subsection (5) (b) of section 174. I made the suggestion that the word "not" was there by mistake in line 15. I do not think we should pass the section until I am assured that it should be in there.


Albert Béchard: I will read this in English because I have it in English. A question has been raised regarding the wording of subsection (5) of section 174. The suggestion is that the word "not" in paragraph (b) of that section is inappropriate. I hope the following explanation will persuade hon. members that the wording of the paragraph is correct and appropriate.
Subsection (1) of section 174 provides that the minister may make application to the Tax Review Board or to the Federal Court in certain circumstances. Subsection (2) of that section permits the minister to name the taxpayers he wishes to have bound by such order as the board or court may issue. When such an application is made, subsection (5) provides that the time in respect of any appeal periods of persons named in the minister's application ceases to run. When the order of the board or court is finally made, paragraph (a) of subsection (5) provides that the time for appeal periods starts to run again but only for those taxpayers who are named by the board or court as being bound by the order.
A provision is therefore required' for those persons who are named in the minister's application and for whom, consequently, the time period for appeals was stayed, but who are not named in the order of the board or court. Paragraph (b) of subsection (5) is that provision. It provides for the giving of notice for persons who have not been named in the order of the board or court. When such notice is given to such person, the time for his appeal period begins to run again. Consequently, the word "not" in paragraph (b) of subsection (5) is correct and appropriate.
I hope the hon. member followed that explanation.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: If the parliamentary secretary and the government are satisfied, then so am I. I raised the question because it seemed to me that a person did not need to be served with a notice telling him he had not been named in an order. But I am happy to accept the explanation which is given and which appears to be satisfactory.
Clause 1, section 174, as amended, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall section 176 carry?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I am not sure. We have already passed 176, I believe.


Gérald Laniel: Then the committee will return to the examination of section 220.
On clause 1-section 220: Minister's duty.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: On a question of procedure, I presume Your Honour called section 220 so that we might proceed with our discussion of the block of sections running from 220 to 247. I should like to know at this point whether the government has reached any decision on what it intends
Income Tax Act
to do with respect to subsection (2) of section 239 which was stood in order that further consideration could be given to it.
We think it is important that the court should have the final say in regard to sentence and that it should not be a matter for the Attorney General of Canada to decide. What has the minister to say about the absolute right of the Attorney General to proceed by way of indictment without the option of a fine being provided?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I am advised that this type of provision has been in the act since 1948. There is no indication that it has been used other than in a manner appropriate in the circumstances. This being the case, I respectfully submit that the circumstances which led to it being in the act in the first place continue to prevail at this time.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, the minister used the phrase "appropriate in the circumstances". Appropriate in what circumstances? Does he mean appropriate in the circumstances of a government department trying to collect taxes, or appropriate in the eyes of a court, which would never be asked to rule in any case when it is dealing with a case by indictment because if a person is found guilty the court has no option but to sentence him to a jail term under the provisions of the subection. He cannot say "appropriate in the circumstances" when each one of us would have to decide how to proceed in such cases as Smythe in Toronto and Drapeau in Montreal. One is dead and the other is before the courts. I say the minister cannot use the phrase "appropriate in the circumstances" because what is involved is an absolute judgment.
Courts are either faced with a summary conviction procedure and if they find the accused guilty they carry out the law as they find it in the act, or if it is an indictment procedure and they find the accused guilty they have no option but to impose a prison sentence plus a fine. I think the minister is treating us ill when he says it is appropriate in the circumstances. It is a judgment matter and that is what we are trying to get away from in this chamber.
We are trying to pass a new, so-called tax reform measure under which the Attorney General of Canada can be faced with an awful decision. I think it must be awful for a man to decide whether he will prosecute somebody for tax evasion to the point where the man pays a fine and may have an option of going to jail, or to proceed by indictment and, by God, if you are found guilty the judge will send you to jail.
For the Minister of National Revenue, one of the few for whom I have admiration because he buckles down to considering the problems we send to him, to say "in appropriate circumstances" beggars the intelligence of the House of Commons and I hope he can do better than that on the second round.


Mr. Bigg:: Mr. Chairman, I will yield the floor to the minister if he wishes to answer at this time. If not, I wish to make a few remarks on section 239(2). I am wondering how there can be equality under the law in view of the differing treatment given individual tax evaders and large

November 30, 1971
Income Tax Act
corporations. Obviously it is impossible to punish a corporation by putting it in jail, yet an individual taxpayer who may be guilty of no great offence against the state is in double jeopardy. Not only is he subject to what may be double or triple penalties under the act, but at almost the whim of the Attorney General of Canada he can be indicted and put in jail.
I could name cases involving millions of dollars where large corporations got off scot-free or made retroactive tax payments-and I shall have something to say about making tax laws retroactive when we come to section 221. Surely the purpose of reforming our tax laws is to make them equitable. An individual in breach of the tax laws is almost persecuted, not prosecuted. I should like to hear from the minister how the law can be equitable when corporations and individuals who similarly breach the regulations or the act are treated differently.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, in the circumstances outlined by the hon. member I think there would very likely be evidence that would lead to individual officers or employees of .the corporation being charged. Therefore, the problem he refers to is not so likely to occur as he thinks may be the case.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: That may be half an answer, but as we well know senior members of corporations very rarely are held personally responsible for the misdemeanours of the corporation as such. It is very easy for them to claim that they were away on leave when the books were kept or the returns were made. On the other hand, an individual taxpayer does not have this professional protection or ability to fight. He is the one who is faced with what I have referred to as double jeopardy. A loophole still exists in the law since it is impossible to put in jail a corporation and all the members jointly responsible for tax evasion.
In the case of multinational corporations it is impossible to round up the people concerned since they are not subject to our law, certainly not subject to our criminal law. The only way of penalizing them is to impose an enormous fine. In some cases this might mean putting the corporation concerned out of business. Be that as it may, they would not lose their personal liberty.
My personal view-and I have had experience of the law-is that the only kind of law that is any good in a country like this is that which treats us all equally. As I say, I see no equity in a law that makes an individual subject to double or triple jeopardy whereas some other outfit that hides behind legal jargon is able to escape entirely its responsibility and thwart our properly thought-out and administered revenue laws. I am still not satisfied with the answer.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, earlier this afternoon I raised this particular problem. Since one is sometimes asked what one would do to solve problems one raises, might I be permitted to give the Minister of National Revenue, his officials and parliamentary secretary an opportunity to consider this suggestion. In the case of certain offences, where an accused wishes to see the kind of evidence that is brought against him he is allowed to do so by way of preliminary hearing before a magistrate. That official then decides whether the evidence is sufficient to send the accused to a higher court for trial. On the
IMr. Bigg.J
other hand, there are cases where the accused is given the option to proceed by way of summary conviction in a lower court. The advantage in being tried in a lower court is that the penalty that is usually imposed is much less severe than that imposed in the higher court for the same offence.
I suggest we can tackle this problem in one of two ways. Perhaps it is not capable of solution tonight. In any event, I think the government should study this proposal overnight, and I would also be interested in the views of any of my colleagues as to whether I am on the right track. I suggest that we extend the maximum under section 239 from two years to five years. Perhaps this remedy is not as palatable as my other suggestion, which is simply to give the accused the option of deciding whether he wishes to proceed by way of summary conviction or by way of indictment. If the latter, he runs the risk, if convicted in the higher court, of suffering an additional three years' sentence, though every other factor would remain the same.
I do not know whether that suggestion commends itself to the government, but at least it would not put the Attorney General of Canada in the position of having to decide what type of procedure he would use against particular individuals. The individual would be put in the position of deciding that he prefers one course or the other. Since I raised this problem initially, I thought I should try to come up with some kind of answer to it.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, we would certainly be pleased to take the suggestion made by the hon. member under advisement, and for that purpose I ask that this section stand.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I spoke at considerable length on this point. I heard the minister's reply just as I came back into the committee and I was astounded to hear him say, especially since he is a lawyer, that he accepts the principle that a public servant will determine whether a man goes to jail or not. The minister knows as well as I do that a mandatory penalty is attached to the indictment procedure. That can follow from any non-compliance with the act, pursuant to section 239 (l)(a), (b), (c) or (d). That includes the failure to file an income tax return on demand.
There is no way that the administration can justify that it must have the right-I emphasize this-to determine that a man shall go to jail. It is the courts that will send a man to jail. We have courts of law for that purpose. It is the judge who will decide, on the merits of the case-not the Attorney General, not the Deputy Attorney General or the director of prosecutions. None of those persons is in a position to determine that a man shall go to jail. Therefore, subsection (2) of section 239 must be wiped off the statute books.
The penalty can be increased, if it is so desired, under paragraph (g) of subsection (1). I prepared amendments. I have the amendments ready and I intend to move them so they will be before the committee. I want hon. members to determine and to vote on the question of whether they are prepared to have government officials or a minister of the
November 30, 1971

Crown determine that a man shall go to jail, because that is the nub and essence of this problem.


An hon. Member:: Come on.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is in respect of income tax. So they broke the law! Ask the Attorney General of Canada if all people go to jail all the time for breaking the law. The emphasis is away from jail to pecuniary penalties. I ask the hon. member for Sarnia if he can justify that a minister of the Crown or members of the Department of Justice have the right to send a man to jail.


Mr. Jerome:: They do not do that.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. member for Sudbury wants to get the facts. There is a mandatory jail sentence.


James Alexander Jerome: Surely the hon. member will agree that whether or not that discretion in the section is exercised, if it is exercised in favour of indictable proceedings there must be a trial.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The point is that perhaps the fact cannot be denied. For instance, there may be no question about the failure to file an income tax return. It does not matter whether you should have paid $5,000 or $3,000 in income tax. Let the parliamentary secretary study the bill, particularly sections 239 and 235.


James Alexander Jerome: You are presuming guilt before trial.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is a fact. The parliamentary secretary should know there are things which are factual and others which are not. If a demand has been made in the appropriate way by departmental officials to file an income tax return, and none has been filed, this is a fact. In Montreal today there is a summary conviction procedure outstanding for failure to file, and this carries a jail sentence if the judge so desires. However, if the Crown had proceeded by way of indictment there would be a minimum of two months and up to five years in jail without any choice. The judge has no other choice.


James Alexander Jerome: The judge does have a choice.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Now we know you do not know the law.


James Alexander Jerome: I do know the law. Are you saying the judge must convict?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The judge must convict.


James Alexander Jerome: Guilt is assumed before trial! Don't be ridiculous.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am telling the hon. member that if there has been a failure to file a return, no return is there-


James Alexander Jerome: It has to be proven.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -and the man cannot produce any records to show he has filed-


James Alexander Jerome: Then he is guilty.
Income Tax Act


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: He is guilty. So he goes to jail if you proceed by way of indictment. That is what I want to eliminate. Why must we have the indictable procedure when there is a mandatory jail sentence of up to five years? Is that for someone to play ducks and drakes with the taxpayers? Why must the minister play ducks and drakes? I was parliamentary secretary to a Minister of National Revenue who would under no circumstances allow a proceeding by way of indictment. He said the law was repugnant. It was up for revision.
Why should the Attorney General of Canada have this power? It is not needed. All you have to do, if you want to increase the jail sentence which provincial judges may impose-and their jurisdiction has been increased-is raise it to five years on summary conviction.
I move:
That clause 1, subsection 239(l)(g) be amended (a) by deleting the words "two years" in line 39 at page 549 and substituting the words "five years" and (b) by deleting the whole of subsection (2) thereof and renumbering the following subsections accordingly.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I second that motion.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. With this amendment the committee will find itself in a procedural difficulty in the sense that although all the sections in the group are before us, only section 220 has been put. Therefore I invite discussion and advice from hon. members concerning the procedure they wish to follow. Should the committee stand section 220, the basic section, and open discussion on section 239 on which I would put the amendment?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, my amendment is in the same category as the amendments advanced the other day by the Minister of National Revenue. At that time a number of amendments were stood and are waiting until the section is called. My amendment is in the same category.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I agree with the hon. member; his point is valid so long as he does not wish section 239 to be brought to a decision at this time. Shall section 220 carry?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has just presented an amendment and his colleague from Nova Scotia has presented one. I said, in response to his colleague's request that the government give consideration to the points he raised that the matter would be taken under advisement. I said that the hon. member, quite properly, made similar points before the supper hour and has now added to them. Now he has moved an amendment. In fairness to his colleague I suggest we should deal with the hon. member's amendment in the same way. Therefore, I would suggest that the portion of the bill before us stands so that further consideration can be given to the amendments to sections 239 and a response made as soon as possible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have just agreed to that.


Gérald Laniel: Is it the minister's suggestion that section 239 be removed from the group which we are

November 30. 1971
Income Tax Act
studying at present? Perhaps the Chair could make the suggestion that the section be stood and that the committee carry on with the examination of the group of sections until we reach section 239.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, perhaps my choice of words was not the most appropriate. I do not claim to be completely familiar with the manner in which the committee has been dealing with subsections to which hon. members are proposing amendments which are then stood for study. I did not suggest that we attempt to dispose of clause 239 but, rather, that it should be stood to give the government an opportunity to consider the amendments just now proposed by two members of the official opposition, and that the committee dispose of the other sections under the general grouping before it. '


Stanley Howard Knowles: The handling of this bill is unique in our history, but I really do not think there is any difficulty about the matter now before us. We are considering the group of sections from 220 to 244, but the one Your Honour called is 220, so we are having a general discussion. Now we have notice that when we get to section 239 there are two amendments that have been moved. All we are agreeing to is that those amendments wait until Your Honour calls section 239. In the meantime we are still on the general discussion sparked by the calling of section 220.


Gérald Laniel: Shall section 220 carry?
Clause 1, section 220, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall section 221 carry?
On clause 1-section 221: Regulations.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Section 221(2) at page 530 provides for retroactivity of the regulations under the act. As we all know, the regulations are often more important than the statute. It appears to me that even when the act has been published the taxpayer will not know what he is facing until the regulations are out, and the regulations may well provide inherent, unseen dangers and pitfalls in the tax structure. Therefore it is most difficult today, when any businessman, farmer or taxpayer of any kind has to set his house in order, has to look to the future, see whether it would pay him to incorporate or not to incorporate, to be a partner or not to be a partner, to know what regulations he is facing. As I read this bill, he might even become delinquent under the law, faced by regulations of which he has no knowledge whatsoever. This is not only taxation in retrospect but in many cases it is jeopardy in retrospect.
When we are breaking new ground in almost every facet of Canadian life in this bill, it seems to me that we must be very careful that the taxpayer knows what dangers he is walking into. If we are to have regulations which are more intricate than ever-and goodness knows the bill is hard enough to understand with its seven pounds of intricate and devious writing; and the regulations will no doubt be more voluminous-the taxpayer must know exactly what his tax position is. We are breaking new ground in the matter of retroactivity, and I would like to see the point clarified. The regulations should be ready at the time the act is passed, certainly where they have any definite effect
[The Deputy Chairman.]
on the taxpayer, his right to his property and money that he may or may not owe the government.
This is a very dangerous section of the act in that apparently there is no limit on how far back you can go. I am only guessing, but I presume that he can only go back one fiscal or one taxation year. Today when you are putting the onus of proof on the taxpayer, the government can go ahead and do what it likes and it is up to the taxpayer to prove that he has been unjustly treated. If it is not written into the act, I presume he would have no resort. I do not like the word "presumption" and I do not like the taxpayer having to presume anything. He should be able to read in simple, basic English regulations which are not devious but are well understood and have no retroactivity whatsoever.
I would be quite willing to resume my seat if the minister or any person speaking on his behalf would clarify this issue and tell us how retroactive this section is and whether it is needed at all. I do not see any need for retroactivity. It is bad enough to be taxed in the new field, but how retroactive is that tax with its double and triple penalties and even the possibility, under section 239(2) which we have just discussed, of a taxpayer facing criminal charges for being negligent under this voluminous legislation?
If a person is a day late filing his income tax return he may be subject to all these penalties. The matter is left to the judgment of someone who is not even a judge and who may not even be trained in the law. That someone can be a member of the ruling party of the day, and under the legislation he will have the responsibility of determining who is and who is not to be treated as a criminal. Then when the trial takes place, the taxpayer suddenly finds himself in the very reverse of the position he occupied under common law and criminal law of being deemed innocent until proven guilty. Here we have a perverse regulation forcing the taxpayer to prove himself innocent of any offence under the law. Such a regulation can make a criminal out of him and he may carry a criminal record for the rest of his life. He may be sent to jail for at least two months, if I read the bill correctly. If it does not mean that, at least no one on the government side has risen to say exactly what it does mean.
The bill says in plain language what the penalty will be. It says it may be up to a five-year prison term and no less than two months. We have a retroactive provision in section 221(2) which is adding insult to injury. It is a very serious matter. People are worried about the unknown pitfalls of taxation. It is impossible for a man to order his business, arrange his family affairs and decide whether or not he should incorporate. I know that I am repeating myself, Mr. Chairman, but this is an important point. We are being asked to rush this bill through the House. We are getting the same old blackmail that we always get when Christmas is arriving: You won't get home to see your families unless you hurry up and pass this bill- which nobody wants or understands.
There have been 148 amendments already submitted. We are getting more every day. We are not unreasonable when we see a minister of the Crown attacking the problem with forthrightness, fairness and candour, and when an amendment is reasonable we will pass it with very little
November 30, 1971

discussion. That has been demonstrated already today. There are many provisions in the bill that need to be questioned. I have been following the debate closely, and most of the points have been made by hon. members on this side of the House. The 148 amendments submitted by the government are not really helpful in making this bill a reform of the tax law. But well thought-out amendments have been submitted by hon. members on this side of the House and I know that some of them have met with approval of hon. members opposite. However, I am a little disappointed that we do not hear more from those hon. members.
I know that hon. members opposite must be getting mail dealing with this bill. My mail is mountainous. People want to know where in the world we are going. They want to know what to do about estate planning, about passing on the little estate that may be left to them after the enormous taxes that people in this country are experiencing. It is expensive to incorporate and it is just as expensive to get out of being incorporated.
We do not know where the law is taking us. We do not know what incorporation will mean by the time this bill is passed. We do not know what the regulations interpreting the bill will mean. That interpretation is important and dangerous. If those interpretations are made retroactive, then not only are we in a fog but we are in a bog-and it isn't easy to get out of a bog when you are in a fog.


Gaston Clermont: Mr. Chairman, I have a very brief comment on section 221 (2) in order to demonstrate its usefulness. I will give an example.
If after a budget speech the minister of Finance announces amendments to the Income Tax Act, the bill submitted to the House to obtain Parliament's approval for these amendments may be adopted after two or three months only and if i understand well subsection (2), regulations cannot be retroactive. Regulations are promulgated following the amendment of an act and I understand that section 221 (2) is necessary in the case I mentioned and in other cases.

Clause 1, section 221, agreed to.
Clause 1, sections 222 to 224 inclusive, agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall section 225 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall section 226 carry?
On clause 1-section 225: Seizure of chattels.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On section 225, Mr. Chairman, again this is a provision that had been in existence, and I believe it was my colleague from Parry Sound-Muskoka who spoke about the difficulties connected with the ten days' notice. In this day and age of less than efficient mail service, with only a five-day delivery per week, unless the notice emanates from the office of the local director of taxation there may be considerable delay in having it delivered.
I wish to ask whether the notice will emanate from the local director of taxation, in which case it might be deemed to be relatively local mail, or does the notice come
Income Tax Act
from the enforcement section of the Department of National Revenue, in which case it emanates from Ottawa? In the latter case ten days' notice is not sufficient for some of the rural areas of the more distant provinces where there is no such thing as next day delivery.
On this matter I do not speak from lack of knowledge. I know that if a letter is mailed in Ottawa on Wednesday and gets to, say, Grand Prairie, Alberta, on Friday it may sit there and not be delivered until the subsequent Monday, and in some communities it may not be delivered until the following Tuesday. We know that in the larger cities in particular, with the accumulation of mail from Friday afternoon through Saturday, Sunday and Monday some mail cannot be delivered on the Monday. All this delay eats into the ten days' notice period. If the parliamentary secretary can tell me that the notice period will be from the date of receipt of the letter by registered mail, and that there is an unequivocal interpretation of that, I will be satisfied. But if the dispatch of a letter by registered mail is being considered, say, from Ottawa through to northern British Columbia or northern Alberta-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Or Hamilton.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -or to any point like that, then those ten days are eaten into. What is meant by the registered mail provision? Is the time to apply from the time of the signature for the registered letter? Does the period start from the time of the signature, or does it begin with the date stamp on the letter which may have been registered for greater certainty of delivery?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Sometimes one cannot trust even that method of delivery.


Gaston Clermont: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member for Edmonton West whether he would like a period of so many days to be set, since I see no 10 or 15 days stipulated in section 226?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: We are dealing with section 225.


Gaston Clermont: Mr. Chairman, I thought you had called section 225 and that it was carried.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, but I was on my
feet at that point.


Russell Clayton Honey: I wondered whether the hon. member for Edmonton West was directing his remarks to section 225 or section 226. Section 225 was called and carried. Was the hon. member addressing his remarks to section 226?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, to section 225. I was on my feet. I heard Your Honour call it and I said "No." I had my hand up at the time. I realize that it may be difficult for the Chair to hear members who are farther away than others. Some members may take objection to parts of a section. I want information, I am not objecting. I want clarification of section 225.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, it may be that, inadvertently, section 225 seemed to have been agreed to, but I did see

November 30, 1971
Income Tax Act
the hon. member for Edmonton West object at that point. So-


Russell Clayton Honey: The Chair did not notice that the hon. member for Edmonton West was objecting. I appreciate that he may have done so; it may be that I did not see him. The Chair was trying to be careful and not move too quickly. I think it is important for these matters to be aired in this informal manner. Does the committee consent to revert to section 225, deal with the matter raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West and then deal with section 226?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gaston Clermont: Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that section 225 be allowed to stand for a few minutes? I thought that section 225 had been passed; this is why I was referring to section 226 and I could see no section concerning a time limit. Then the hon. member for Edmonton West-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Nevertheless I spoke long enough about it.


Gaston Clermont: Does the hon. member accept my suggestion to stand section 225 for a few minutes? I hope to give him the information which he requested.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Agreed.


Russell Clayton Honey: Is it agreed that section 225 shall stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 1, section 225, stands.
Clause 1, sections 226 to 229 inclusive, agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: Hon. members will note that an amendment to section 230 was proposed by the Minister of National Revenue on October 22, 1971, as reported at page 8959 of Hansard.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.
Clause 1, section 230, as amended, agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: Again, hon. members will note that the Minister of National Revenue proposed an amendment to section 231, as recorded at page 8959 of Hansard.
On clause 1-section 231: Investigations.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall section 231 carry?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: One moment, Mr. Chairman. I think the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka wished to introduce an amendment to section 231. I had been talking with the hon. member for Bonaventure, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, with regard to the precise answer that applied to section 225, and now we have arrived at section 231. I am particularly interested in subsection (13).
Some of my colleagues have raised points with regard to section 231 and I hope we get answers before the section is passed. The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council knows of the comments I

made with regard to the provision of answers or nonanswers, and I prefer to leave it at that unless we are to be denied answers. I am not suggesting that the answers will necessarily be the ones we want, but at least we should be given some answers.
On clause 1-section 225: Seizure of chattels.


Gaston Clermont: Mr. Chairman, coming back to section 225, I am informed that the powers under sections 225 and 226 have been exercised in headquarters at Ottawa only.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, with the greatest respect, in his statement on section 225 the hon. gentleman referred to powers that have been exercised in the past. But the whole act is back on the table, and I could not care a damn what was exercised in the past.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What I am concerned about, in seeking information under section 225, is the time from which the ten days begins. Does it run from the time the official of the Department of National Revenue takes the letter to the post office and the date stamp appears on the letter, do the ten days begin whenever the addressee or his representative signs the deliveryman's book acknowledging the receipt of a registered letter or from the time he goes to the post office and signs a book acknowledging receipt of the registered letter?
From what time and from what date will the ten days run? That is a question of information and it is not a question of what was the practice heretofore. I was not asking for an immediate answer. I am prepared to give whatever time is required. Surely a question of this nature is capable of receiving a very simple, administrative answer.


Gaston Clermont: Mr. Chairman, we shall accept the suggestion made by the hon. member for Edmonton West that section 225 be made to stand, but I was under the impression that he was asking for some explanations. I have given him the information that the officials gave me but, apparently, that is not satisfactory to him. So, I accept his suggestion that section 225 be made to stand so that it may be considered later on.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is good practice, but tell me what it is all about.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if this would be an opportune time for me to interject an announcement. There have been discussions about the business of the House for tomorrow. We will continue in committee of the whole on the tax bill and deal with clause 2.
I wanted to make that abundantly clear so we are not faced with any confusion on clause 1. We will discuss clause 2 which appears at page 596 and deals with the repeal of federal succession duties and the Estate Tax Act. We would go on to other business on Thursday. There has been preliminary discussion about whether we would return to other sections which have already been dis-
November 30, 1971

cussed, but for tomorrow it is agreed that we will deal with clause 2 of the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, is the parliamentary secretary reasonably hopeful that we will not take as long on clause 2 as we have on clause 1?


James Alexander Jerome: Very much so.


Russell Clayton Honey: To review the position, it is the understanding of the Chair that section 225 was stood by consent and it is the understanding of the Chair that with the consent of the committee it shall remain stood. The committee next has under consideration section 231(2) to which there is an amendment moved by the Minister of National Revenue. That amendment was put to the committee and passed. I am now prepared to put the question. Shall section 231 as amended carry?
On clause 1-section 231: Investigations.


Gaston Clermont: Mr. Chairman, may I propose to the hon. member for Edmonton West that section 231 be made to stand?

Clause 1, section 231, stands.
Clause 1, sections 232 to 234 inclusive, agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall section 235 carry?
On clause 1-section 235: Penalty for failure to make returns.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, this of course relates to section 239 and in the same way but to a lesser degree to section 233. In section 233 there is an obligation to file information. It is not a return, but failure to file the information as a result of the request by the minister, which means one of his officials, is non-compliant with the act. It is unfortunate that the Minister of National Revenue is not present.
There are a number of areas in which regulations can be made and authorized. There are a number of new sections which will call for new regulations. Section 221 authorizes the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the minister, to make regulations in order to carry out all general purposes of the act. Following the presentation of a brief by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce to the Minister of Finance on Bill C-259, a letter from that body dated November 17 suggested that the public should see the regulations in draft form before the act was finally passed. This was done by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in connection with the textiles bill when the regulations that would be applicable were tabled in draft form. The committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs did not put a stamp of approval on the regulations but at least the public knew what they were.
The regulations under the Income Tax Act may be half as thick as the act which is before us. Certainly the regulations as they existed were about the same thickness as this blue, unilingual version of Bill C-259. There are many new terms and concepts in this bill which will have to be defined and explained by way of regulation, yet the Canadian public has seen nothing although the act is supposed to take effect on January 1, 1972.
Income Tax Act
There is no one here from the Department of National Revenue. It is unfortunate that the officials cannot speak because I would like to know whether they have any regulations ready with regard to capital gains and with regard to mining and petroleum which will be effective on January 1.


An hon. Member:: They don't care.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: If valuation day should be in the latter part of December, how can we tell whether a capital gains tax is payable if there are no regulations? Canada will be in the most ludicrous position. It will have a capital gains tax in effect but the vendor, the purchaser nor representatives of the Department of National Revenue will be able to tell what regulations bear upon transactions starting January 1, 1972. We are supposed to be running a logical, intelligent operation. I wish the officials could talk and tell us if the regulations are ready. Can either of the parliamentary secretaries tell us whether the regulations are ready on capital gains?


Gaston Clermont: Mr. Chairman, I understand that section 235 deals with penalty for failure to file returns. It does not deal with regulations generally.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Is that an answer, when this section deals with a failure to file a return pursuant to regulations passed under other two sections? Does the parliamentary secretary have the gall to tell us that this does not deal with regulations? I will specify it: Are the regulations with regard to sections 215 and 221 ready? I want to know.
It may be that because they are a carryover the regulations will be much the same. But they have not been enacted. They would have to be enacted by a new order in council to make reference to the new sections. Even if section 221 has been passed, I am still in the general area and can talk about this subject. Have the regulations been made with regard to these matters?
Maybe the parliamentary secretaries do not read this kind of correspondence, but the Canadian Chamber of Commerce has asked for assurance that they will see regulations which will affect transactions starting on January 1. The parliamentary secretary will agree with me that if there is a transaction in the first week of January which is to be affected by regulation, the parties to that transaction should surely be in a position to know what the regulations are. The regulations might completely change the position of the parties. I want to see them. Surely to goodness we should be entitled to an answer.
Where is the Minister of National Revenue? I was assured yesterday he would be on duty today so as to answer questions. I do not hold it against the two hon. gentlemen who are here. They have not been placed in the position of having the information. Merely to sit there and have to take abuse is an ungrateful job, I understand that. But information of this kind is vital to the committee when it is called upon to determine whether it will pass sections under which vital regulations are supposed to be made. The bill is supposed to be operable in a month from now. Will the regulations be ready by January 1?

November 30, 1971
Income Tax Act


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.
Could I put a question to the hon. member for Edmonton West?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Certainly, but it is not up to me to answer questions.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, could the hon. member for Edmonton West refer to some cases where, during consideration of a bill, regulations were introduced before the end of the consideration of the bill?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, Mr. Chairman. In several cases, the act was not to become effective before a given date. The act was subject to promulgation.


Albert Béchard: Give an example.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I shall refer to the case of the Textile and Clothing Board Act. This Act was not promulgated before the regulations governing the activities of the Board. But the minister was sensible enough to make these regulations before the passing of the Act; he introduced them so that they be considered by the members of the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic affairs. As I explained, everybody was there, witnesses from the textile industry, manufacturers or importers, and they knew what it was all about.
I hope it is a good example, but what makes the big difference is the fact that the whole Bill C-259 will be effective on January 1, 1972, and there will be a capital gains tax.
Since there will be regulations on capital gains-


Albert Béchard: There will be.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, of course, and we cannot expect the world to stop, nor trade nor business for that matter. But parties to a deal are at least entitled to know the rules governing such deal. I am merely asking a question.
Will the regulations be ready by the first of January?


Albert Béchard: Yes, if the bill is carried.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Nonsense, Mr. Chairman, the regulations will be ready! So I shall ask the parliamentary secretary whether he went to the other place this evening to get the report of the chairman of the Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce. What were the very "close" comments made by those who form the majority in the Senate, and what will be done about them?


Mr. Corbin:: We will make you a senator.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: All right, you are the
first candidate.
dd


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: A senator, what is that?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I want to know. I have been assured that the Minister of National Revenue would be here to give answers.
I know that the necessary information is not given to the Parliamentary Secretary of the President of the Treasury Board. He cannot tell us whether there will be regulations
or not. It is not his jurisdiction. I am not blaming him personally. It is the system.


Gaston Clermont: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a correction as to the impression which the hon. member for Edmonton West may have left, probably unwittingly, concerning today's debate. He said that the parliamentary secretaries to the Minister of Justice and to the President of the Treasury Board respectively had been listening. In order to get things straight, I wish to specify that in most cases, members who asked questions got answers from the Minister of National Revenue, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, or myself. I wonder if more than two amendments-I am not talking about amendments proposed by the government, of course- have been carried in any one day of debate on this bill following a suggestion from members of the Official Opposition.
As for regulations which the government might introduce once the Act has been passed, let me say that I belong to a responsible party whose task it is to govern this country, and that if the bill goes through Parliament, I have no doubt that regulations will follow.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The parliamentary secretary should know that unfortunately he is not in a position to give an undertaking on behalf of the government. I know he is making his statement in good faith and that he hopes these regulations will be forthcoming in good time. But what we want to know from the Minister of National Revenue, who is the minister in charge of the administration of this act, is whether they have the regulations ready-whether they will be ready by January 1, 1972.
I do not wish to repeat myself six times in order to get this information. I should like to make progress with this group of sections, but since we cannot I am quite prepared to see this one stand and go on to some of the others.


Gaston Clermont: Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that section 235 be stood?


Russell Clayton Honey: Is it agreed that section 235 stands?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 1, section 235, stands.
Clause 1, section 236, agreed to.
On clause 1-section 237: Application for assignment of social insurance number.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I do not mentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour will laugh on know whether members of the committee know this, but under the Income Tax Act it is an offence to fail to show one's social insurance number on one's income tax return. That is in non-compliance of the act, subject to regulation of course and also subject to penalty. Perhaps the Parlia-the other side of his face-


Mr. Perrault:: I am not laughing at the hon. member.

November 30, 1971


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -if he gets caught under section 239 because he failed to catch this little point. This is bureaucracy gone mad.
Clause 1, section 237, agreed to.
Clause 1, section 238, agreed to.
On clause 1-section 239: Offences.


Russell Clayton Honey: There is an amendment proposed to this clause by the hon. member for Edmonton West.


Gaston Clermont: Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest that section 239 be stood.


Russell Clayton Honey: Is it agreed that section 239 shall stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, there is a further point under subsection (4) of section 239. This provision is completely new:
Where, in any appeal under this act, substantially the same facts are at issue as those that are at issue in a prosecution under this section, the Minister may file a stay of proceedings with the Tax Review Board or the Federal Court, as the case may be-
Then it provides that either the board or the court must stay the proceedings. Since the Minister of National Revenue is now in the committee perhaps he could tell us why priority is given to the criminal proceedings under section 239 as against the proceedings in the Federal Court, trial division. If a case has some element in it involving criminal proceedings, why are these proceedings given priority? Why are the criminal proceedings not dealt with subsequent to completion of the civil case?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, I think two comments might be made in response to the hon. member's question. First of all, it seems to me that if the type of procedure contained in the proposed subsection was not available, there could be two separate tribunals dealing at the same time with similar facts and one can see there could possibly be unfairness to the taxpayer concerned. There is a second point I should like to check and I will speak to it in a moment or two.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, since this is an important point and we have a new provision here, I think the minister should take this under advisement. I want to know why criminal proceedings have priority over civil proceedings. Criminal proceedings are directed by the Attorney General on the one side and the Minister of National Revenue is being asked to comply with the desire of his colleague to enter a stay of proceedings on the civil side. This would mean that the proceedings before the Tax Review Board or the Federal Court would be stayed. I feel the priorities are reversed here.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, I see it is about ten o'clock and perhaps it would be more helpful to the committee if I attempted to provide the information to the hon. member at the next session of the committee.


Russell Clayton Honey: Is it agreed that we call it ten o'clock?
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, November 15 I asked the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Sharp) whether the government was also considering reversing current government policy which requires that government documents be confidential unless otherwise designated so that all government documents would be public documents unless otherwise designated by the government. To this he replied:
Mr. Speaker, I am sure I speak for all those who have been charged with responsibility for government when I say that unless there are confidential relations between public servants and the government the whole system breaks down, and that is what is at issue here.
Mr. Speaker, I asked that question because it is distressing to me to see so much time and energy being devoted to, and so much glee and chagrin being displayed over the making public of a document that should never have been secret in the first place. The information being compiled by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray) in order to assist the government in coming to a decision on the whole question of foreign ownership in Canada is being compiled at the expense of the taxpayer. It is of vital interest to the entire nation and is information that is essential to proper judgment being made about the policies which would be based upon the data being compiled by the minister.
The report should have been a public document. If it had been, we would not now be subjected to this tempest in a teapot. But my concern goes beyond the so-called Gray report and the alleged cabinet minutes of July 29. My concern is to see the entire existing concept of secrecy of government documents-that is to say, that the documents are considered to be classified documents unless declared to be otherwise-reversed. I want to see the whole system reversed.
My question arose out of a belief that there is an increasing desire on the part of the public to participate more directly in the making of the decisions which inevitably affect them. My question arose also out of the belief that the power of the legislature to control the cabinet has been diminishing and ought to be increased. In our society information is power. When one party in an argument or a dispute or a discussion has a virtual monopoly on information, the exercise is extremely one-sided. Participatory democracy is a meaningless phrase if only the government has the information necessary to participate mean-
November 30, 1971

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
ingfully. Legislative control of the executive is virtually non-existent if the legislature does not have ready access to the information necessary to exercise that control.
For those reasons current regulations governing the secrecy of government documents make a mockery of our claims to democracy, participatory or otherwise. Instead of requiring that all government documents be confidential unless otherwise designated, the government should make all documents available upon request unless they have been specifically designated as confidential. Naturally, there would have to be limitations and exceptions to this general rule. My colleague from Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather) in 1965 submitted a private member's bill to this House which said that the law that documents should be accessible to the public should not apply to records or information that affect national security, that are exempted by statute from disclosure, that concern trade secrets and commercial or financial matters of a privileged or confidential nature obtained from private persons, or that concern cases where the right to personal privacy excludes the public interest.
The crucial point is that the principle would be reversed; the right of free access would prevail. Given the limitations already outlined, limitations which should be set out explicitly in the constitution or in a secrecy act, a person should have access to any administrative document without proving that he has a legal interest in that document and without stating the purpose for which he wishes to see it. Further, such documents should be made available immediately or as soon as reasonably possible.
Moreover, a citizen should be able to file a petition with the courts if he is unable to obtain documents within a reasonable time. The argument advanced against my proposal was that unless there are confidential relations between public servants and the government, the whole system breaks down. It is not good enough to say that civil servants will not be as candid in their submissions to the government if their submissions might be read by the public. One could argue that, if anything, to protect their reputation their documents would be more candid. For one thing, the personal proclivities of their immediate superiors would weigh less heavily with them.
As with so many proposals for social change, the predictions about the consequences are not based on fact but on fancy and are often greatly exaggerated. To permit access to government documents as a natural right would not destroy our democratic system but, rather, would enhance it. We would not be the first country to adopt such a law. For over 200 years Sweden has provided open access to official documents and provided full information to any citizen about administrative activities. There are many many sources which indicate it has been far from harmful to the Swedish system.
There are so many indications of undesirable effects which result from government secrecy that the whole principle must be seriously questioned. The list of minor stupidities and major disasters which have resulted from this policy is endless. The concept of mindless governmental secrecy is incompatible with democracy, with the people's natural right to have access to the information upon which policy decisions are based. Canada inherited its love affair with secrecy from the archaic and outdated system of absolute monarchy and it has been preserved
[Mr. Rowland.1
by successive governments and officials mainly for thieir own convenience, to protect themselves against the consequences of possible error.
I suggest it is time to reverse that policy. It is time to make information available to all sectors of the public so that the public and Parliament can discuss matters intel-lingently and with full knowledge, and so influence government policies. It is time to reverse that policy so that we will not be subjected to any more of these ridiculous debates about who did what, where, when and how with respect to a document which should have been public knowledge in the first place.


Mr. Barnett J. Danson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker-


Stanley Howard Knowles: All dressed up.


Barnett Jerome Danson: after and also to ensure that too much secrecy is not being imposed.
I have often wondered about the value of these "late show" debates, but this is a perfect example of their value because government officials and civil servants become sensitive to public opinion, and this is a form of protection. Officials and civil servants must be frank with one another but not overcautious-


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



MANPOWER-AVAILABILITY OF JOBS IN THOMPSON AND SUDBURY

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: On November 18 I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on what information he based the statement he had made a day or so earlier in which he said that while there was large-scale unemployment, every person who really wanted a job could find one. He used as an illustration of this claim the fact that supposedly jobs were available for miners in Thompson, Manitoba, and Sudbury, Ontario, when in fact in Thompson, Sudbury and at Port Colbourne some weeks earlier the International Nickel Company had begun a series of lay-offs.
I was appalled by that flippant remark of the Prime Minister, not just because it was flippant in relation to a very serious problem but because I thought that with his large and supposedly efficient staff, much greater in size than that of any other Prime Minister in Canadian history, he would have been better briefed. He simply did not have the facts. As I say, lay-offs had begun at Sudbury and at Thompson weeks before the Prime Minister made his remark.
The situation with regard to unemployment is serious. In October, 1971, the last month for which we have figures, there were 447,000 people unemployed. The seasonally adjusted rate for unemployment was 6.7 per cent, the highest October rate in more than ten years. For more than 18 months the percentage of unemployment on a seasonally adjusted basis has been over 6 per cent, and in September we had the almost unprecedented rate of 7.1 per cent.
One would think that if there were a large number of vacancies our Canada Manpower centres would know about them. After all, Mr. Speaker, we have been pouring increasingly large amounts of money, hundreds of millions of dollars, into the various programs of the Canada Manpower centres. According to the Financial Times News Service in November over 480,000 people who were looking for work were registered with Canada Manpower centres in the major cities of Canada and the number of job vacancies which the Canada Manpower centres had on record was just 48,000. In other words, the number of people looking for work was ten times as many as the number of jobs available for them.
Yesterday the Economic Council of Canada issued a report which ought to make even the Prime Minister, who has been so unconcerned about unemployment, worry a little. It pointed out that we face the formidable job of finding 1,400,000 new jobs in the next five years, almost
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
twice as many as we have been able to find in the last few years.
The report points out that if we are to reduce the percentage of unemployment to 3.8 per cent, which is not a figure picked out of the air because it was the average rate of unemployment in the last three years of the Pearson government, we will have to increase the number of new jobs at a rate of about 31 per cent per year. But, Mr. Speaker, we have not done better than increase that number by about 2.2 per cent per year. So we have a tremendous task before us. The government began that task late.
Some weeks ago the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) announced a new program. I suppose one could say that late conversion is better than no conversion at all. I close by saying that the unemployment problem will not be solved and our thinking about the problem will not be helped by the kind of flippant witticisms to which the Prime Minister so frequently subjects the country.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, concerning the recently reported lay-offs at the International Nickel Company of Canada Limited, the situation arose because of the sharp decline in world markets for nickel. As a consequence, the company laid off some 250 salaried workers at Sudbury, Thompson, and at head office in Toronto. Some 445 hourly personnel were laid off at the company's refinery in Port Colborne, Ontario. In addition, the company suspended the hiring of miners and smelter workers at its Sudbury and Thompson operations. It was indicated that no significant lay-offs of production workers would occur at either of these sites due to the fact that normally high attrition rates due to quitting, retirements and other personal reasons would not necessitate a lay-off of personnel. Prior to the suspension of hiring of miners and smelter workers the company recruited several hundred workers every month during 1970 and up to late October, 1971, for its Sudbury and Thompson operations. This happened quite recently.
Concerning the job vacancies in metal mines generally, the number of job vacancies registered with Canada Manpower centres for 1971, up to the end of October, averaged 1,655 per month. To fill these vacancies an average of 2,215 referrals per month were made by Canada Manpower centres during the period concerned. Based on periodic reviews and analyses of hirings and separations information that is available for certain sectors of the mining industry, it is apparent that some mine operators experience a fairly heavy turnover of workers. This accounts for a considerable number of the job vacancies that arise in the industry every month.
For some mine operators the availability of adequate numbers of qualified workers presents difficulty. As a consequence, representations are made by these mine operators to promote and publicize the industry in order to attract workers to it. In addition, requests have been made by mining companies that a recruitment program for foreign workers should be implemented by the government to alleviate problems encountered in obtaining adequate numbers of qualified workers. In view of the general availability of workers in Canada, the response of the Department of Manpower and Immigration to these

November 30, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
requests is that no program for the recruitment of foreign miners can be considered.


David Orlikow: What kind of answer is that?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Was that an answer to the question?


Barnett Jerome Danson: It was an excellent answer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You and your dress suit!



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-GRANT TO UNION CARBIDE, BEAUHARNOIS-LOSS OF JOBS AT WELLAND

John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr. Danson) does not read the same answer that he read in reply to the previous question when replying to the point I am about to raise.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It would be just as relevant.


John Edward Broadbent: Two years ago, during this period, I was on my feet objecting to the fact that the government had given Duplate Canada, Limited, three quarters of a million dollars to move part of its operation from Oshawa to Hawkesbury. All that did was to move employment from one part of Ontario to another at public expense. The excuse given at that time by the minister responsible was that the legislation did not allow for discretionary authority, that certain formal requirements had been met and that the grant had to be made. Apparently Duplate Canada, Limited had met the formal set of criteria and therefore had been given this money from the taxpayers.
That answer was not entirely acceptable even at that time but was, within limits at least, a plausible kind of argument. We were assured, when the legislation was subsequently amended to give the minister discretionary authority in matters involving regional grants, that such foolish use of public funds would not be repeated. The members of my party and I specifically supported the change in the legislation that would give the minister discretionary authority. I did so at that time with the provision, if you like, that I would look with particular interest at future grants made by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. It seems that the bad habits are repeating themselves. A week ago Aerovox Canada Limited was given a $235,000 grant to move part of its operation, and therefore its jobs, from the city of Hamilton, Ontario, to Amherst, Nova Scotia.
This wonderful act was not to be let alone. It was followed by the announcement about a week later, by the same department, that the Union Carbide Company of Canada was going to be given approximately $1.3 million to move from Welland, Ontario, to Beauharnois, Quebec, thus taking 70 jobs from the province of Ontario-shuffling unemployment around within the country.
It seems to me that the issue is very clear, Mr. Speaker. At the very best the minister is not making wise decisions. He is not spending public funds as they were intended to

be spent in terms of regional development in the country. He is simply creating unemployment, in this case in the province of Ontario, by providing jobs elsewhere. This, of course, is unjust and unfair to the workers directly involved in this province and raises the important question about the future of the regional development program in general.
The program has always been dependent on the strength and viability of the economy of Ontario. Throughout, not only this government's regional development plans but those of preceding governments have relied on income transfer payments generated by the economy of this province being shifted to those areas of Canada less well off. I think this is a highly desirable process. But if this government continues to make grants to companies simply to move from the province of Ontario to other parts of Canada, not only will we be doing an injustice to the workers directly involved in this province but we will be building up general opposition in Ontario to the whole idea of regional development.
It is one thing to appeal to a worker in this province on the basis of some commitment to principle, to equity, to the idea that we must use funds to encourage development outside the province, but it becomes quite unacceptable to the same worker when it is evident that the funds are being used not simply to create jobs elsewhere in the country but to take his job out of his province. If the government keeps this up it will be undermining the acceptance of the program in Ontario.


Mr. John Roberts (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the eloquence of the hon. member is not supported by the facts of the situation. I made inquiries this afternoon and understand that the company will make a statement tomorrow. Without wishing to prejudge, I think there are certain relevant facts which should be brought to the attention of the House. The first is that the number of people affected by the action is not 350, but 70.


John Edward Broadbent: I just said 70.


John (Moody) Roberts: In the House earlier the hon. member referred to 350 workers. That is true on the metals side of the operation of the industry. There is the expectation that 70 people will be affected. By late 1972 the graphite and carbon section of the operation will be sufficiently active to employ a significant number of the 70. Second, the fact is that the furnaces in operation in this project are all of pre-World War I vintage. They are obsolescent and do not meet the pollution standards of Ontario. The result is that three of them must be discontinued almost immediately, and the other four by the end of 1973.
The company is therefore faced with a decision as to where its new capacity should be located. Unfortunately, in relation to Welland there are certain drawbacks, partly the cost of electricity, partly the cost of transportation. The real question is not whether the capacity is to be created at Welland but whether this capacity is to be retained in Canada at all. Because of the low cost of extracting and processing the ore in South Africa there is a real danger that this operation might not continue in Canada for long.
November 30, 1971

The fact of the matter is that were it not for the assistance offered by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the favourable hydro rates available in Quebec, these new installations would not be built in Canada at all. So the question is not the transfer of employment from Welland to Beauharnois; the real ques-
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
tion is whether employment is to be created inside this country or outside it. The department is interested in maintaining this level of employment inside Canada rather than see it go elsewhere.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.29 p.m.

Wednesday, December 1, 1971