1971-12-13

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to state that it has not been possible tor the representatives of the several parties in the House to reach an agreement under Standing Order 75A, nor has it been possible under Standing Order 75B, with regard to an allocation of time to the third reading stage of Bill C-259, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act and to make certain provisions and alterations in the statute law related to or consequential upon the amendments to that act.
I am therefore giving notice of my intention to propose at the next sitting of the House a motion under Standing Order 75C that debate at the third reading stage of the bill conclude on Friday, which will provide an additional three days after tomorrow.


Mr. Baldwin:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Your Honour, of course, held on this point of order the last time this unfortunate action was announced that you are bound by the statement of the minister and we cannot go behind it. That is a precedent and of course we accept it. However, because of what I said before I think I am entitled to state on a point of order that, while I knew of the discussions which were being held as to the question of time allocation, I did not participate in them. Without the safeguards provided by the proposed amendment of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), which view was unfortunately not shared by other parties, it was the position of this party that we could not agree to a limitation within the time mentioned by the minister.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in the course of three days in Brussels last week I attended the December ministerial meeting of the North Atlantic Council, continued our conversations with the European Economic Commission and had
meetings with the French Foreign Minister, Mr. Schumann, and the Acting Foreign Minister of Greece, Mr. Palamas.
Western Europe, with Britain on the threshold of the community and already being drawn into its councils, is the scene of some of the most dynamic developments in the world today. The negotiations for the enlargement and deepening of the community in their final stage are paralleled by East-West negotiations over the status of Berlin, and by promising moves toward a modus vivendi between the Federal German Republic and the German Democratic Republic. These developments, taken together, are bringing about a Europe more soundly based economically and with a healthier and saner political climate.
Progress on Berlin is the most dramatic of these developments. Since the Second World War, Berlin has been a focus of the East-West confrontation and unsettled relations between the Federal and Democratic Republics of Germany a major stumbling-block in the search for detente.
Without the active support of NATO, Chancellor Brandt would have been unable to negotiate, on a basis of equality, the treaties with the U.S.S.R. and Poland, nor could the Federal Republic, acting alone, have any real hope of reaching a modus vivendi with the German Democratic Republic.
It is against this background of forward movement in Central Europe that the NATO meeting should be seen. The two major preoccupations of the alliance, and I believe of the Soviet Union and the countries of the Warsaw Pact, are the holding of a conference on security and co-operation in Europe and the negotiation of mutual and balanced force reductions, usually referred to by the acronym MBFR.
On the conference, ministers reaffirmed the position they adopted at the June meeting, that NATO countries are ready to enter upon multilateral preparations for a conference when a satisfactory conclusion of the Berlin talks has been reached. Meanwhile, they agreed to keep in touch with the Finnish government which has offered Helsinki as a site for conversations on this subject. Two of the stages needed for a Berlin settlement have been concluded. The Soviet Union has made conclusion of the final stage contingent upon ratification of the Warsaw and Moscow treaties. This may be expected within the next few months.
What is important, however, is the process set in motion by the conference concept. The conference, whenever it is held, and whatever its outcome, is only one element of a wider negotiating process. The substantial gains I have noted in Central Europe have their foundation in the realistic "Ostpolitik" of Chancellor Brandt. But I wonder whether they would have been achieved had the confer-

December 13, 1971
External Affairs
ence idea not been accepted in principle and had NATO not made of the Berlin element an essential pre-condition for a conference. It is not unusual in diplomacy that movement toward a certain goal, in this case the conference, itself results in the resolution of long-standing problems. Similarly, it may well be that the conference will set in train further movement toward easing of tensions.
On MBFR, the alliance noted with regret the lack of a Soviet response to the offer to send an explorer, in the person of Mr. Brosio, former Secretary-General of NATO, to Moscow. This was a proposal made by Canada at the June meeting. In the course of the past ten days both Mr. Brezhnev and Mr. Kosygin have renewed expressions of Soviet interest in force reductions but confined themselves to generalities. If the Soviets would receive the explorer, progress would be made positively and quickly toward substantive negotiations. That they have not done so, I believe, reflects the fact that the Soviets and their friends have not yet worked out either their procedural or their substantive position on MBFR and are having real difficulty in deciding how to respond.
The alliance is not making negotiations on MBFR a precondition to the holding of a conference, but ministers noted that if a conference was to address itself effectively to the problems of security in Europe it should deal in a suitable manner with measures to reduce the military confrontation.
Ministers took note of the strains imposed upon the alliance by continuing monetary and trading problems affecting member nations. At Canada's suggestion, it was agreed that these problems should be kept under continuing review.
My discussions with Mr. Malfatti, President of the European Economic Commission, Mr. Mansholt, Vice-President, and other senior officials came at a particularly apposite time, on the eve of the Council of Ministers' consideration of United States proposals for resolution of the monetary and trading problems now facing us. I told Mr. Malfatti, as I had told Mr. Rogers in Washington a week earlier, that Canada is willing to make its contribution to a general settlement but does not regard bilateral negotiation of the removal of the surcharge as either feasible or desirable.
I stressed to the commission Canada's interest in eventual movement toward freer trade and expressed the hope that once current difficulties are overcome the commission would show willingness to move further in this direction. I also took up with the commission specific problems of access to the Common Market for Canadian agricultural and forest products, in particular, rapeseed.
I am glad to be able to report that I found that attitudes to Canada have become more realistic in the past year. The commission now has a much clearer concept of Canada's identity and its position in the trading world. There is no longer a tendency to lump Canada with the United States. This changed attitude is a direct result of the frequent and frank exchanges we have had with the commission and with the ministers who make up the council. These we will continue, and I again stressed to Mr. Malfatti and his colleagues our wish to have consultation with the community put upon a more systematic basis. This is not an easy matter, since consultation at the ministerial
level such as we have with our other major trading partners, like the United States and Japan, involves the Council of Ministers, consisting today of foreign ministers of six countries, soon to be ten. Until this final goal can be achieved we are working toward regular consultation with the commission and pursuing our interests in bilateral consultations with ministers of the member nations of the community. The setting up of consultative machinery was also the principal issue I discussed with the French Foreign Minister, Mr. Schumann.
My conversation with Mr. Schumann was one of a continuing series in which we discussed many aspects of our shared interests and particularly our responsibilities as major Francophone countries.
While I left Canada intending ro meet Mr. Palamas, Acting Foreign Minister of Greece, as it happened the meeting took place at his request. He wished to urge upon me the need for a continuing Canadian contribution to the United Nations force on Cyprus. I explained the Canadian position, that we will maintain our forces in Cyprus only so long as we believe that their presence can contribute to the reaching of a settlement and not just to allow the parties to the dispute to put off a settlement indefinitely.
I expressed to Mr. Palamas the deep concern many Canadians feel about the situation in Greece. Mr. Palamas assured me of his government's firm intention to implement the constitution progressively and restore democracy in due course. I urged upon him the need for the Greek government, if it sets store by the opinion of others, to act in accordance with its words. Elections, I suggested, would go far in this direction. I can tell the House that Mr. Palamas was left in no doubt of the depth and strength of Canada's concern for democracy in Greece.
I should now like to table the communique issued after the meeting of the North Atlantic Alliance, and suggest, if the House agrees, that it be printed as an appendix to Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of communique referred to above, see Appendix A.]


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the minister for his statement and his usual courtesy in making it available to the opposition spokesmen at something earlier than the last minute. It would be easy to say that the statement was innocuous or vacuous but I will resist the temptation and compliment him rather on its realistic moderation. It compares most favourably with the starry-eyed "look what I found" statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) after his return from Washington via Damascus.
However, I cannot refrain from commending the minister-and I have been watching this for a good many years-for what strikes me to be a changed attitude toward NATO. In 1968 and later it looked as though the present government would throw NATO into the ashcan of discard. Of all the errors of anticipation and execution of the present government, the one which I feared most was a reassertion of the Mackenzie King doctrine of isolationism. I might be tempted to make political capital out

December 13, 1971

of an apparent change of emphasis and direction, but I will not.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: But I will tell the minister, if Liberal backbenchers will allow me, that my colleagues and I, rather than talking about last minute conversions, will support in every way any effort to make NATO a more viable and effective international organization.
I do wish that the minister had told us a little more about his conversations with officials of the European Economic Community. For example, I should like to know what progress was made in the very important area of penetration of markets that might very well be closed to us. I agree wholeheartedly with what the minister said about the situation in reference to Berlin, or at least as I understand what he said. I think we must stick by Chancellor Brandt who in this day and age is showing himself to be a very realistic, dedicated and sound statesman.
I would also tell the minister that he is quite right in suggesting that without the support of the multinational organization of NATO Chancellor Brandt would not have been able to move as far as he already has in the very important development of detente with East Germany. Whatever lies ahead, if that man, his people and his government can find a modus vivendi with East Germany, who are we in Canada to look askance at such a hopeful development? I think that NATO's involvement in this and its support of and co-operation with Chancellor Brandt are of tremendous importance.
The minister might have told us a bit more about his discussions with Mr. Schumann, the Foreign Minister of France. Sometimes there have been interesting developments between Canadian and French statesmen, not all of which were reported. The minister might have been a little bit more forthcoming on that but the fact that they talked is something that we put down in the positive column.
I noted too his reference in his statement to Japan. This is most important because there is a tremendous community of interest between Japan and Canada today. I believe this should be studied, furthered and developed. I hope that in all the activities in the field of summitry a move will be made to invite the Emperor of Japan to this country so that we may be able to discuss in fuller detail the great community of interests existing between our two countries.
I agree with what the minister said about Cyprus. We must work for a political settlement there. It is very depressing that year follows year and we still have a group of military people in Cyprus. Canada is doing at least as much as and indeed a great deal more than others in maintaining a peacekeeping group there, but the lack of progress toward a political settlement is depressing and disheartening. I think it is not enough merely to have military or paramilitary groups there maintaining a most uneasy status quo. We must move toward conciliation or mediation of this problem; otherwise, it seems to me that the whole United Nations operation is facetious, ill-
External Affairs
advised and not the kind to which we should lend our great support.
The minister also referred to his discussions with Mr. Palamas of Greece. We are all terribly disturbed by what has taken place in Greece and what has taken place for a long time in Portugal, but being a realist-and a conservative has to be a realist-I am often puzzled about what we can do under these circumstances. Do we go about the world and apply some unique diplomatic litmus test whereby we register those who are totally democratic and suitable to ourselves and expel all those who do not measure up to that standard, or do we withdraw? Are there any nations in the Commonwealth which are not totally democratic? Are there any nations in the United Nations which are not totally democratic by our standards? Indeed, if we carry our self-righteousness too far, I wonder what we do about a provincial premier who refuses to pay attention to how the voters vote. So we cannot carry that too far. I have always tried to be a man of detente, a man of peace, a reasoned and reasonable internationalist, but I would say that in the long run we have to underscore again the realities of the situation.
I am depressed by something the minister touched upon very lightly, the fact that the explorer, that very distinguished statesman, the former Secretary General of NATO, Dr. Manlio Brosio, has not yet been received by the nations of the Warsaw Pact. Until he has received a welcome there, how can we be realistic in our anticipation of an early move toward the detente which we all welcome? I am glad the minister mentioned the rebuff which Mr. Brosio is receiving. I hope that those who make a profession of a desire for detente from east to west will quickly move to accept that great statesman so that in a realistic and sensible way those of us who believe in NATO-and I hope Canada will continue to belong to NATO for a long time-may move toward a concentration upon the real problems of Europe and take firmer and fuller steps toward a more peaceful Europe and a more agreeable and sensible relationship among all the peoples of that great continent.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, we in this party are naturally gratified that the forward moves on which the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) has reported in regard to Europe, and which we have long advocated, now seem to be coming to fruition. I refer to the proposed European security conference and to the proposal for a mutual balanced force reductions in Europe.
I think the best news we have had in the international world recently has been the progress in regard to Berlin. In my view progress on Berlin-and I do not differ from the minister in this regard-is the key to normal and peaceful relations in Europe and, indeed, through Europe so far as Europe is concerned in the world. Unless there is a total dismantling of the massive confrontation of tactical nuclear weapons which still exists, there can be no real peace in the heart of Europe. I welcome the fact that in his statement the minister paid tribute to the Chancellor of West Germany, Mr. Brandt, because I believe his policy of Ostpolitik has opened the door to sanity in the relations between the European powers. I pay tribute to him myself for this development.

December 13, 1971
Dairy Subsidy Payments
I noticed that one thing seems to have been omitted from the statement. It is my understanding from reading some of the press that the nations which comprise the North Atlantic Council have indicated that instead of reducing their budgets for arms they in fact intend to increase them. If this is so I hope Canada has no part in that particular decision because if anything is clear it is that we must reduce and not increase the mad momentum of armament which exists at the present time.
I am glad also to note that the Secretary of State for External Affairs engaged in consultation on trade matters with the leaders of the European Economic Community. This would seem to be of vital importance to Canada's interests. I was interested to note that the minister had conversations with the Acting Foreign Minister of Greece. Naturally I was pleased to note that the minister made clear to him that so far as Canadians are concerned there is a deep and strong concern for democracy in Greece. I would have been more impressed had the minister told us that Canada has joined with other countries in NATO where the matter should be raised, countries such as Denmark and Norway, in saying that the activities, attitudes and policies of the military dictatorship in Greece and the policies of the dictatorship in Portugal are diametrically opposed to and inconsistent with the basic principles that NATO is supposed to defend. I would have thought that was the place, not in private conversation, to raise the issue of democracy in Greece and indeed in Portugal.



AGRICULTURE


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce a change in the policy of dairy subsidy payments which will be of particular importance to smaller cream producers. The change will apply to shippers who held a subsidy eligibility quota at any time since 1967 but whose eligibility for subsidy was later withdrawn because they delivered less than 420 pounds of butterfat in a year. It will permit people in this category to again become eligible for subsidy if they deliver 420 pounds or more in this or a subsequent year. The new arrangement will start in the present dairy year. Those whose quotas were withdrawn previously and who deliver 420 pounds or more between April 1, 1971, and March 31, 1972, will be paid subsidy on their deliveries during the year, up to their quotas.
If a shipper's quota was withdrawn in 1969 or in a later year, his reinstated quota will be the same as that which he held at the time it was withdrawn. If his quota was withdrawn in 1968, his quota will be for the amount of his deliveries in the 1966-67 year or 420 pounds, whichever is the greater.
The payment for this year will be made at the end of the year, but for next year they will be reinstated for the regular subsidy payments on their monthly deliveries.

The same procedure will follow in subsequent years. If those involved have deliveries of less than 420 pounds this year but reach that figure in the 1972-73 year, they will be reinstated at the end of that year.


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the statement made today by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) that the subsidy eligibility quota will be returned to producers, all I can say is that the subsidy eligibility quota should never have been withdrawn from them in the first place. I can well remember that the Minister of Agriculture was so advised by members of the Official Opposition at that time. I have to say that the operation of the Canadian Dairy Commission under the guidance of this minister has certainly left a great deal to be desired.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Resign.


Mr. Bell:: You have milked your last cow.


An hon. Member:: Off to the Senate.


Robert Elgin McKinley: We can remember that a year or two ago a great deal of money was deducted from payments to producers, and it cost producers a great deal to sell on world markets. We have gained access to world markets but in the meantime the policies of the Canadian Dairy Commission have so curtailed production in this country that we can no longer fill those world markets.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Robert Elgin McKinley: I believe that new advisers are needed in the Canadian Dairy Commission as well as in the Department of Agriculture. In order to make a good job of filling world markets and in order to regulate production, plans must be made four or five years ahead. This government has been unable to do that so far as grain or milk or almost anything else that you can name is concerned. So we would like to see some improvement in that regard.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister and those responsible have some method of adequately notifying the shippers in the various categories to which the minister has referred. I may tell the minister-and I think he knows it-that since this policy has been in effect in western Canada and in Saskatchewan in particular those of us who represent farmers in that area have had to deal with farmers whose eligibility quotas and therefore their payments have been cut off. I may tell the minister that only last week I was still receiving representations from farmers in that area. Perhaps if a real effort is made the minister's department will be able to correct some-I stress the word "some"-of the hardships they have imposed on the small farmers in Saskatchewan and indeed in Manitoba and Alberta. It may be that they will so reorganize their affairs as to allow the dairy industry to produce in sufficient quantities to serve the needs of the nation.
It seems strange to me that the department has managed dairy affairs in Canada so badly that, according to information received in answer to questions put in the Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, we will be importing ten million pounds of butter from the United States at
December 13, 1971

considerable cost. Even at this stage we are purchasing butter from the United States and paying import duty and freight charges. At the same time we are depriving our own producers of the right to earn a livelihood by means of milking cows and shipping cream. I think this indicates a very bad situation.
I cannot overemphasize the hardship that has been inflicted on our people. Yet we are being asked to approve supply management policies of the government in the face of this kind of management. We have been asked also to approve a grain stabilization program and to approve supply management programs under Bill C-176. We in the opposition must make a judgment on the basis of the record of the government, and the record is not good.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alfred Pullen Gleave: The minister may smile, but the people who telephone me and who spoke to me in Saskatchewan are not smiling. They are under considerable financial stress; they do not regard the situation as funny, and neither do I. So I say that better than this must be done to avoid running short of protein and butter at a time when there are unfed and undernourished people in this country.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I remember the discussions we had in the Standing Committee on Agriculture on the subject the minister mentioned in his statement.
Several members then defended dairy producers, but in vain. Those producers are found in all parts of the country. In fact, they are the ones who operate what we call small family farms and who still have the right to survive today. If we want to avoid getting the majority of the rural population on welfare, we must give those who still have plenty of spunk a chance to earn as much as possible. Canada as a whole will benefit from it and this is still the best formula: that all Canadians profit from individual efforts.
By again granting subsidy payments to small dairy producers in our country the government is taking a step forward, I think. It had lost ground, but now it is making a headway. I hope that we are going to keep on going in the right direction because the minister in his statement of last week recognized the real usefulness of the family farm when millions were approved for its survival.
As a farmer, I believe that the best help is first to let the farmer do his share by giving him easier access to markets for the sale of his products and guaranteeing him prices corresponding to present costs, having regard to the cost of production so that he may make a reasonable profit.
I hope that the current improvement of the dairy market will encourage the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) to grant benefits to other groups of dairy producers, in order to remove.as much as possible the penalization for overproduction.
As a result of increased demand for dairy products on the international market, I hope-and this is what I am asking the Minister of Agriculture to do-that appreciable improvements will be brought while there is still enough time, as far as quotas are concerned, so that production
Questions
may normally increase to meet market needs and prevent Canadians from having to import dairy products. This could easily happen and, in my opinion, the minister is conscious of the fact. It is surely on account of that danger that he decided to make some improvements. I am very pleased and I hope that policy will be extended to other groups of producers so that they may enjoy all possible benefits.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Skoberg: 1.	What was the cost of preparing and publishing the posters under the Opportunities for Youth programs depicting young people travelling across the Nation?
2.	Were public tenders called for the printing of such posters and, if not, for what reasons?
3.	Where was the printing done?
4.	Did printing shops across the Nation have an opportunity to do printing for the program?
5.	What was the breakdown by province for mailing the literature?
6.	Was any such material received late and, if so, what reasons were given for the delay in such shipments?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: 1. None. However, posters were prepared for the transient youth program, and the cost was;-Counter cards, $984.03; Posters, $3,199.39.
2.	No. Under three weeks were available to have the posters designed, approved and printed.
3.	In Montreal, by Metropole Lithographing Inc.
4.	Yes, As far as the Opportunities for Youth program was concerned, newsletters were produced and printed in the five Opportunities for Youth regions: Atlantic, Quebec, Ontario, the Prairies, British Columbia.
5.	The posters were distributed to hostels and kiosks across Canada which were listed on the pamphlet tabled in reply to Question 1851. The newsletters were distributed within the particular Opportunities for Youth regions, as mentioned in reply to Part 4.
6.	No. The material was not received late.


SUBSCRIPTIONS TO &quot;HANSARD&quot;
Mrs. Maclnnis: 1.	How many subscribers for Hansard were there for the 1967-68 and 1970-71 sessions?
2.	What is the breakdown by province of these totals?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Department of

December 13, 1971
Questions
Supply and Services and Information Canada as follows:
1.	The following are the circulation figures for Hansard for the 2nd Session, 27th Parliament, for 1967-68:
	English	French
Paid	7771	976Free	5717	173313488	2709
1970-71 Session 15,900
2.	The records of the breakdown by province for the 2nd Session, 27th Parliament, for 1967-68, are not available.
1970-71 Session
Alberta	980
British Columbia	1,438
Manitoba	747
New Brunswick	407
Newfoundland	257
Nova Scotia	652
Ontario	7,415
Prince Edward Island	129
Quebec	2,866
Saskatchewan	623
Yukon	26
Northwest Territories	39
Other Countries	321
	15,900


BARBER COMMISSION-IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Have any recommendations of the Barber Commission been implemented and, if so (a) how many (b) which ones?
2.	How many are presently being considered and what are they?
3.	What steps are being taken to implement the recommendations to reduce the cost of farm machinery and machinery repairs?
4.	What steps are being taken (a) to bring about greater standardization in the industry (b) to bring about a central testing and evaluation agency (c) to encourage farm machinery manufacturing in Canada (d) to co-ordinate better parts service at lower cost (e) to avoid shipping delays due to prolonged delays at customs?
5.	Is the appointment of a farm machinery ombudsman under active consideration?
6.	Is any consideration being given to the recommendation which would provide for a guaranteed loan program for dealers similar in form to F.I.L.A.?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 1. Yes (a) 6 (b)
1 to 6.
2.	1 Number 7.
3.	Covered in 1 and 2.
4.	a, b and c-A study has been undertaken by the Canada Committee on Agricultural Engineering; c and d-Discussions have been held with representatives of the farm machinery industry; (e) The various aspects of the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Farm Machinery to speed up delays in customs clearance of
(Mr. Jerome.]
repair parts are under consideration in the Department of National Revenue.
5.	The appointment of a farm machinery ombudsman at the federal level is not deemed to be apropos since the matter is within provincial jurisdiction. Provinces with legislation on the farm machinery and equipment industry generally include or have amendments under consideration respecting the appointment and duties of such an official.
6.	The implications of this recommendation together with these having to do with interest-free floor planning are being considered.



SUPPLY AND SERVICES-PURCHASE OF FLASHLIGHTS

Mr. McQuaid: Has the Department of Supply and Services recently awarded a contract to Major Sales Distributions for the purchase of flashlights and, if so (a) how many flashlights were purchased (b) what is the price per flashlight (c) to what departments will the flashlights be distributed?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: (a) (b) and (c) Yes. On August 4, 1971, a contract was awarded to the lowest tenderer, Major Sales Distributions, for 7,607 flashlights at $2.45 each, for delivery to the Canadian Forces Supply Depots located at Toronto, Moncton, Montreal and Lancaster Park, Alberta.



SUPPLY AND SERVICES-PURCHASE OF TENT POLES

Mr. McQuaid: Has the Department of Supply and Services recently awarded a contract to Dominion Magnesium Ltd. (Aerometals Ltd.) for the purchase of tent poles and, if so, how many tent poles are being purchased and what is the cost per pole?


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes. A contract was awarded on August 6, 1971, to the lowest tenderer, Dominion Magnesium Ltd., (Aerometals Ltd.), for the supply of tent poles to the Department of National Defence depots in the amounts, prices and locations as follows: 2,245 poles at $20.62 each to Montreal and; 748 poles at $20.75 each to Lancaster Park, Alberta.



SUPPLY AND SERVICES-PURCHASE OF CORRECTION FLUID

Mr. McQuaid: Has the Department of Supply and Services recently awarded a contract to Dixon Pencil Co. Ltd. for correction fluid and, if so (a) how many gallons of fluid are being supplied (b) to which departments will the correction fluid be distributed (c) when was the last contract for correction fluid awarded and for what amount?


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes. A contract was awarded on July 16, 1971 to the lowest tenderer, Dixon Pencil Co., Ltd. for $21,151; (a) 275.4 gallons, of correction fluid, supplied in one-ounce bottles at $0.48 each; (b) distribution on demand to all federal departments supplied by DSS No. 1 Supply Centre; (c) the last contract was awarded on October 28, 1970 to another company for $17,496. for 218.7 gallons, supplied in 34,992 one-ounce bottles at $0.50 each.
December 13, 1971



SUPPLY AND SERVICES-PURCHASE OF SUNGLASSES

['(a) In\nresponse to the Agricultural Products Board invitation to tender on the supply of eviscerated turkeys for delivery to the World Food Program, nine tenders were received in units of 200,000 pounds, (b) In response to the Agricultural Products Board invitation to tender on the cooking, deboning, and canning of these turkeys, ten tenders were received in units of 500,000 pounds.\nAt this time, the supply of turkeys is being arranged with successful tenderers and contracts are being negotiated for the processing and canning of the product. However, since the entire program for supply and canning operations is on the basis of competitive tenders and contract negotiations are not yet completed, it is not considered in the public interest to announce unit prices or similar details at this time.']
James Armstrong Richardson: (a) and (b) Yes. On July 16, 1971 a contract was awarded to the lowest tenderer, Safety Distribution Products, Ltd., for the supply of sunglasses for delivery to DND depots in the amounts, prices and locations as follows: 5,500 pairs at $4.80 each to Downsview; 2,500 pairs at $4.82 each to Moncton, and 3,000 pairs at $4.84 each to Lancaster Park, Alberta.



Mr. Schumacher: 1.	Since the inception of the Operation Lift program (a) how much money has been paid out (b) how many farmers have received payment and what is the total amount of each such payment (c) how many farmers have been asked to return moneys paid to them under the program and what are the reasons for such requests to return payments?
2.	Were errors in payments made and, if so, who was responsible?
3.	How much money has been returned by farmers found by the government to be ineligible for payment?
4.	How much money is still outstanding from farmers who the government alleges were not eligible for payment?
5.	What recourse is planned for farmers unable or unwilling to return payments wrongly made by the administrators of the Operation Lift program?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 1. (a) $63,092,778.37 has been paid out to November 19, 1971; (b) 100,909 farmers have received $63,092,778.37; (c) There has been correspondence with approximately 4,500 farmers concerning apparent overpayments. Reasons: a farmer made more than one application; separate applications were made by husband and wife; application included land that was not operated by the applicant in 1970; applicant was ineligible by virtue of being a non-resident; total acres operated by the farmer were greater or lesser than the number stated in the application form; use of acres was changed during 1970 or was incorrectly described by the applicant; mathematical errors by applicants in the preparation of Lift applications or permit books and/or by Lift staff in payment calculation.
2.	Answered by 1 (c) above.
3.	and 4. An amount of $7,509 was paid to applicants who were ineligible for any payments and this amount is outstanding. Overpayments on record to eligible applicants as at November 19, 1971 amounted to $532,351, of which $128,547 has been returned by farmers.
5. The government will pursue normal collection procedures for the return of overpayments.


HEALTH AND WELFARE-LSD AND OTHER DRUGS
Mr. Robinson: Has or will the government obtain reliable information concerning (a) the extent and use of canabis, LSD and other hallucinogen-
____________________________10389
Questions
ic drugs (b) the effect the use of these drugs has on the individual (c) the effect they have on society (d) the effect that ease of control would have on detection and regulation (e) the effect any legal sanctions would have (f) the international implications of legalization?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: (a) A number of sources have already established data concerning the extent of marijuana usage and that of other psychotropic drugs. The final report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs is expected to give further information on this, as will some of the research programs funded by the Department of National Health and Welfare; (b) and (c) Similarly, the government already possesses information on the effect of psychotropic drugs on the individual and society, obtained both from national and international sources. Through the research program under the Department Co-ordinated Programs on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs additional information in this respect will be obtained; (d) (e) and (f) The effect of the application of control measures is a consideration underlying many programs. The government is looking at the many facets of this problem both inside the country and the impacts that our efforts have internationally, continuing liaison through the United Nations and other international groups.


RECYCLING OF PAPER
Mr. MacRae: As a conservation measure, which departments are re-cyciing paper?


James Armstrong Richardson: In so far as Crown Assets Disposal Corporation is concerned: Waste and surplus paper from government departments in Ottawa is picked up by the Florence Paper Company under contract through Crown Assets Disposal Corporation. The paper is reclycled by that company.


CANADA MANPOWER TRAINING PROGRAM
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What were the federal expenditures under the Canada Manpower Training Program, contracted with employers for the purpose of training-in-industry, in each of the fiscal years since 196768 (including the first six months of 1971-72) in each province and territory?
2.	What were (a) the names and address of these employers (b) the amounts paid to each of them from the federal treasury under these contracts (c) in each case, the number of employees trained (d) the trade, skill or discipline in which the employees were trained?
3.	What was (a) the total payroll in the plant where the training took place (b) the number of employees (excluding trainees) in the trade, skill or discipline in which training was conducted, in the plant where that training took place, at the end of each fiscal year in which a training contract with the employer was in effect?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. Federal Expenditures under the Canada Manpower Training Program, contracted with employers for the purpose of Training-in-Industry.

December 13, 1971
Questions
$(000's)
Area	1967-68	1968-69	1969-70	1970-71	1971-72'Newfoundland	268	324	151	30P.E.I.	6	22	112	67	-Nova Scotia	17	261	183	399	38New Brunswick	65	107	122	287	69ATLANTIC	.38	G58	741	904	137QUEBEC	106	520	710	1,066	-ONTARIO	449	2,191	2,819	1,159	945Manitoba	361	494	720	517	24Saskatchewan	42	241	379	145	42Alberta	68	329	747	672	342N.W.T.	-	-	_	14	PRAIRIE	471	1,064	1,852	1,348	408B.C.	-	34	80	339	-Y ukon	-	-	PACIFIC	~	34	80	339	-CANADA	1,114	4,467	6,202	4,816	1,490
*Up to 30 September, 1971.
To provide answers to parts 2 and 3 of this question would entail costly expenditures and the hiring of additional staff to undertake the large amount of work involved in obtaining the detailed information relating to almost 8,000 contracts, covering a period of nearly five years, much of which must be extracted from the records of various of our offices outside of Ottawa. In addition to being costly, as mentioned above, this review would also involve officers already fully engaged in those components of the Government's Special Employment Plan which are the specific responsibilities of this Department.


FAMILY PLANNING AND ASSISTANCE
Mr. Robinson: Will the government consider the advisability of making family planning advice and assistance readily available to all Canadians?


John Carr Munro: The government has considered the question of making family planning advice and assistance readily available to all Canadians and has outlined actions being taken in statements in the House of Commons on September 18, 1970 and May 6, 1971. On the latter date, the Minister of National Health and Welfare stated that the purpose of the government's family planning program is to ensure, in co-operation with provincial health and welfare departments, professional organizations, universities and voluntary organizations, the availability of family planning services and facilities to Canadians who want them. This report also stated that the specific objectives of the program are: (1) To inform Canadians about the purpose and methods of family planning so that the exercise of free individual choice will be based on adequate knowledge; (2) To promote the training of health and welfare professional and other staff involved in family planning services; (3) To promote relevant research in family planning, including population studies and research in human behaviour and reproductive physiology; (4) To support public or private family planning programs through federal grants-in-aid and joint federal provincial shared-cost programs.
[Mr. Lang.J


ABORTION DEFINITION
Mr. Robinson: Will the government consider the advisability of defining abortion as the termination of a pregnancy before twenty weeks gestation?


John Carr Munro: In the expected debate relating to the matter of abortion it may develop that a definition of abortion becomes advisable.


SCIENCE COUNCIL OF CANADA-ANALYSIS OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THIRD ANNUAL REPORT
Mr. Orlikow: When is it anticipated that the analysis of the recommendations of the Third Annual Report of the Science Council of Canada will be made public?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: The government has no plans to make public an analysis of the recommendations contained in the Third Annual Report of the Science Council of Canada. It has, however, acted on the specific recommendation that improved statistical analyses of Federal Government R and D expenditures be published. Such analyses are now published by Statistics Canada in collaboration with the Ministry oi State for Science and Technology each year as "The Federal Government Expenditures on Science" catalogue number 13-202. In addition, Statistics Canada publishes "Advance Statements on Federal Government Expenditures on Science", the latest having appeared in August 1971 as catalogue number 7013-501. The Ministry of State for Science and Technology also publishes the Green Book annually which is a Federal analyses of Government costs for Scientific Activities, and which has been distributed in November this year to all members of the House.


EDUCATION-FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR TEACHING OF FRENCH IN ONTARIO ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
Mr. Kaplan: What assurances did the federal government obtain that money allocated by it for the teaching of French in Ontario elementary schools would in fact be so used?


Gérard Pelletier: When the federal and provincial governments made arrangements for the program of co-operation for the development of bilingualism in education, they agreed that the objectives of the program were to ensure that, insofar as it is feasible, Canadians have the opportunity to educate their children in the official language of their choice, and children have the opportunity to learn, as a second language, the other official language of their country. In keeping with these objectives, grants made under the program are keyed to performance: that is, they are calculated according to the number of students and the amount of time involved in studying in the minority language and learning the second language. (In Ontario, French is considered to be both the minority language and the second language for purposes of this program.) It should be noted as well that the federal and provincial governments have agreed
December 13, 1971

to re-examine the grant formula after eighteen months of operation.


NAVAL CENTRAL DRAWING OFFICE-CANADIAN VICKERS LTD.
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Has Canadian Vickers Ltd. assumed responsibility for the operations of the Naval Central Drawing Office and, if so, on what date?
2.	How many persons are employed in the NCDO?
3.	Is consideration being given by the government to terminate its arrangements with Canadian Vickers Ltd. in Montreal for the operation of the Naval Central Drawing Office and, if so, what future plans are being considered for the function of this Office?
4.	Will assurances be given to the more than one hundred people in the employ of this Office that their jobs will continue?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. Starting in 1949, Canadian Vickers Limited (CVL) under annual contracts with the Department of Defence Production (now Supply and Services) assumed responsibility for the operation and management of the Naval Central Drawing Office (NCDO). This responsibility ceased in 1969 when CVL established their Marine Services and Systems Division. Personnel employed in the NCDO formed the nucleus of this new Division of CVL, which now performs marine drawing work for both commercial firms and the Department of National Defence (DND). The work for DND is under contract with the Department of Supply and Services. The NCDO does not now exist as a separate entity.
2.	Nil. However, as of October 30, 1971, some 67 technical personnel in the Marine Services and Systems Division of CVL are employed on government work.
3.	Although the government does not currently have an arrangement with CVL re NCDO for the reason outlined in 1. above, the Department of Supply and Services does have two contracts with the firm to provide drawings and related services for the Department of National Defence. These contracts are to be completed by March 31, 1972. Invitations to tender for the supply of space and hiring of suitably qualified personnel to perform drawing work and related services on behalf of the Department of National Defence, for a two year period commencing April 1, 1972, have been issued to a number of Canadian firms, including CVL. It is not known what plans CVL has for the future operation of the Marine Services and Systems Division of the Company in respect of commercial and/or government business. However, it is understood CVL recently acquired new commercial business and is in the process of rehiring. The firm also indicated it will respond to our tender.
4.	Other than as noted above, it is not known what arrangements CVL has with personnel employed in the Marine and Systems Division of the Company in respect of future employment.


POST OFFICE-POSITION OF MANAGER-STAFF RELATIONS
Mr. Rowland: 1.	What is the process involved in the selection of a person to fill the position of Manager-Staff Relations in the Post Office Department?
Questions
2.	Through what process is it decided whether a candidate will be called for an interview?
3.	What is the classification by grade of the officers who select particular candidates for interviews?
(Translation]


Gérard Pelletier: I am
informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. Open competition.
2.	A Board of officers is convened to review applications and decide which applicants will be interviewed.
3.	The classification and level of officers serving on Boards referred to in (2) depends upon the classification level of the position to be filled.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-MEAFORD TANK RANGE
Mr. Noble: 1.	What is the perimeter in miles of the Meaford Tank Range?
2.	How many acres of the fringe area of the Tank Range could be used at the present time for recreational purposes?
3.	If this area were opened to the public, what would be the perimeter in miles of the remainder of the Range which would have to be fenced to protect the public?


Mr. Jack Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1. Approximately 25 miles.
2.	This matter is under investigation now and all that can be said at this time is that there are approximately 25 acres which are considered comparatively safe and these two fringe areas are: A portion of Vail Point, and the Administrative Camp Area and its immediate vicinity.
3.	If the two areas in question were cleared and certified safe the following fencing would be required on both sides of the access route plus the area itself; (a) Vail Point-From the junction of the 13th Line and Lower Spring Roads to the beach-4 x 2 - 8 miles, and the area with a perimeter of some 700 to 1,000 yards; (b) Camp Administrative Area-From the Camp entrance to the area along the 9th Line road-] x 2 - 1 mile, and the area with a perimeter of some 1,000 yards.


POLLUTION CONTROL DEVICE
Mr. Aiken: 1.	Has the attention of the Minister of the Environment been drawn to the CTV program "W5" concerning the invention of a pollution control device by George Copeland, and his inability to market it?
2.	Has his department any knowledge of this invention and have they been asked to evaluate it?
3.	If so, what action has the department taken to support the use of this device?


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Individual users will be free to select the systems and devices of their choice to meet the standards for pollution abatement set by the Department of the Environment.

December 13, 1971
Questions


FAO PROGRAM-TURKEYS
Mr. Monteith: In response to the Invitations to Tender for the FAO program issued by the Poultry Division, Production and Marketing Branch, Department of Agriculture, how many tenders were received for (a) Tender No. 1, "The Purchase of Eviscerated Turkeys" dated October 15, 1971 (b) Tender No. 1, "Canned Turkeys" dated October 18, 1971 and in each case, who was the successful tenderer and what was the price per case covering the three lots of 500,000 pounds each?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: (a) In
response to the Agricultural Products Board invitation to tender on the supply of eviscerated turkeys for delivery to the World Food Program, nine tenders were received in units of 200,000 pounds, (b) In response to the Agricultural Products Board invitation to tender on the cooking, deboning, and canning of these turkeys, ten tenders were received in units of 500,000 pounds.
At this time, the supply of turkeys is being arranged with successful tenderers and contracts are being negotiated for the processing and canning of the product. However, since the entire program for supply and canning operations is on the basis of competitive tenders and contract negotiations are not yet completed, it is not considered in the public interest to announce unit prices or similar details at this time.



SUPPLY AND SERVICES-PURCHASE OF PENCILS

Mr. McQuaid: Has the government awarded a contract recently to Scripto of Canada Ltd. for mechanical pencils and, if so (a) what was the amount of the contract (b) how many mechanical pencils were involved (c) when was the last previous contract for mechanical pencils awarded and for what amount?


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes. A contract was awarded on October 25, 1971 to Scripto of Canada Ltd. (a) $14,256; (b) 64,800 mechanical pencils; (c) The last previous contract was awarded on January 8, 1971 to Scripto of Canada Ltd. for 57,120 pencils at a cost of $12,566.



SUPPLY AND SERVICES-PACKING CASES FOR TECHNICAL FIELD EQUIPMENT

Mr. McQuaid: Has the government awarded a contract recently to NVF Industries of Canada Ltd. for the purchase of luggage and, if so (a) what was the amount of the contract (b) how many pieces of luggage were involved (c) what type of luggage was involved (d) what use is to be made of this luggage and how will it be distributed?


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes. A contract was awarded on October 20, 1971 to NFV Industries Ltd., for packing cases for technical field equipment used by survey parties, (a) $11,566; (b) 300 cases; (c) and (d) these cases are used for transporting technical field equipment used by survey parties in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.



SUPPLY AND SERVICES-PURCHASE OF PADLOCKS

["The Farm Credit Corporation advises that the for the municipal counties of Kamouraska-L'Islet, the answer is as follows:\n1969-70\tKamouraska 4\tL'lslet 121970-71\t6\t71959-60\t3\t21960-61\t1\t-1961-62\t2\t-1962-63\t8\t21963-64\t8\t31964-65\t5\t81965-66\t5\t31966-67\t17\t181967-68\t9\t181968-69\t9\t121969-70\t4\t81970-71\t4\t3"]
James Armstrong Richardson: Yes. A contract was awarded on October 27, 1971 to Sargent and Greenleaf of Canada Ltd.; (a) $13,610; (b) 1,000; (c) the last previous contract was awarded on August 19, 1971 at a total cost of $19,849.



Mr. Dionne: 1.	How many loan applications were submitted to the Farm Credit Corporation by the farmers of Kamouraska-L'Islet County in 1969-70 and 1970-71?
2.	How many loans were granted each year in Kamouraska-L'Is-let County since the inception of the Farm Credit Corporation to April 1971?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The Farm Credit Corporation advises that the for the municipal counties of Kamouraska-L'Islet, the answer is as follows:
1969-70	Kamouraska 4	L'lslet 121970-71	6	71959-60	3	21960-61	1	-1961-62	2	-1962-63	8	21963-64	8	31964-65	5	81965-66	5	31966-67	17	181967-68	9	181968-69	9	121969-70	4	81970-71	4	3



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	In what communities in Canada are extra allowances paid to government officials because they are located in remote areas?
2.	What form of classification do these allowances take?
3.	What is the amount allowed in each community for each classification?
Return tabled.


NUMBER OF CIVILIANS KILLED AS A RESULT OF TRESPASSING ON NATIONAL DEFENCE PROPERTIES
Mr. Noble: 1.	How many civilians were killed and how many were injured since 1945 from causes attributed to trespassing on Department of National Defence properties in Canada?
2.	Were these properties properly signed and/or fenced to protect civilians from live or hazardous weaponry?

December 13, 1971

3.	Was the Meaford Tank Range involved in any of these accidents and, if so, what were the results?
4.	How many of the 17,800 acres comprising the Meaford Tank Range are considered to be target areas and are contaminated with hazardous material?
5.	What is the estimated cost per acre to carry out a visual clean-up of the contaminated areas?
6.	What is the estimated cost per acre to decontaminate the target areas?
7.	Does the Department of National Defence have trained personnel qualified to decontaminate the Tank Range target areas?
8.	Could civilians assist in this work and, if not, what period of time would be required to give them the necessary training?
9.	How many acres of the Meaford Tank Range are presently safe and accessible?
10.	For how many years would the live ammunition remain hazardous if no remedial action is taken?
11.	What is the approximate size of Mountain Lake located on the Range?
12.	How many miles of Georgian Bay shoreline are within the confines of the Range?
13.	What is the value of the buildings on the Range and are they in good repair?
14.	What is the value of the water system and is it in workable condition?
15.	How many miles of road are there in the Range suitable for travel by "Jeep" or by automobile?
16.	Approximately how many acres are wooded?
Return tabled.


NUMBER OF TELEVISION STATIONS IN CANADA
Mr. Robinson: How many TV stations are there in Canada and where is each located?
Return tabled.


NUMBER OF RADIO STATIONS IN CANADA
Mr. Robinson: How many radio stations are there in Canada and where is each located?
Return tabled.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION ALLEGED MIS SPENDING OF FUNDS

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: 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 allegations made in a recent study by the Quebec Federation of Labour that the many millions of dollars of public funds spent by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion have been channelled away from economically depressed areas, have not result-24725-29
Inquiries of the Ministry
ed in a net increase in jobs, and that the department has failed to inform the public about the true impact on jobs of its industrial incentives grants across Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Regina East has given the Chair due notice of his intention to request leave to propose the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing the matter stated by him to the House.
In a preliminary way I might say to the hon. member that in my opinion the provisions of Standing Order 26 were never intended to be used as a vehicle for the purpose of airing statements or allegations made outside the House by organizations or people who are not answerable or responsible in any way to this chamber.
It seems to me that the statement made by the hon. member essentially contains a charge of maladministration or of inefficiency in relation to certain programs carried out by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. Without passing any comment on the substance of the allegation attributed to the Quebec Federation of Labour, it must be said that the House has established not only supply proceedings but also standing committees for the purpose of reviewing the operations of the programs of the several departments of government.
It is my opinion that it would be a grave error to permit the use of Standing Order 26 for the purpose of overriding the well established procedures of this House.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question arising out of his reference to his having met Mr. Malfatti on the eve of the Council of Ministers' consideration of American proposals for resolution of the monetary and trading problems now facing us. Could the minister indicate very briefly and succinctly what those American proposals are?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think it would not be for me to reveal what proposals have been made by the United States to the Common Market. I can say, however, that it was a very long list and that the Common Market was rather surprised at the extent of the concessions that the United States wanted from Europe. The European Common Market, like ourselves, is rather uncertain as to the objectives of the United States.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is it still the position of the Secretary of State for External Affairs that although the European Economic Commission has received a list of items, a list of proposals from the United States, Canada has received no such list, no such indication of proposals from the United States?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that has been the position of the government. I have listened to my col-

December 13, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
league, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, say that the proposals from the United States that have been under discussion have been in the newspapers. They are very well known. A great deal of publicity has been given to them.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs what is the proposal of the United States to Canada with regard to the solution of the monetary and trading problems facing it, and particularly what is the proposal with regard to monetary problems?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I was not referring particularly to the monetary problems when I was referring to the statements made by my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. If I had been I would have referred, of course, to the statements made by the Minister of Finance who has made it quite plain that Canada believes that the present policy of the Canadian government of having a floating exchange rate meets all the requirements.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs has indicated that he discussed the question of multilateral negotiations, can he tell the House what contribution it was indicated to him Canada would be expected to make toward such a multilateral solution? What contribution did the EEC indicate it might expect from Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I did not suggest to the European Common Market what their policy should be in relation to the requests of the United States. Neither did Mr. Malfatti presume to offer me advice.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the President of the United States has signed the bill concerning the DISC plan and the situation is not hypothetical any more, would the Prime Minister inform the House what steps the government intends to take to deal with this threat to the Canadian economy as it exists now?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member must have noticed, the DISC plan was finally adopted in a form different from the original proposal. We are now looking at the possible effect of the modified DISC plan and we will see in what way we might have to adjust any contingency plans to meet any effect of the modified DISC plan.


John Stratford Burton: Can the Prime Minister indicate to the House when the government will be in a position to announce such contingency plans?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we will want to announce them when we judge the time, in terms of its effect on the
[Mr. Sharp)
Canadian economy, has arrived at which we must announce them.



ESTIMATE OF EFFECTS OF UNITED STATES DISC LEGISLATION-CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES, BUSINESS AND LABOUR

Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, has the government made any estimate of the effect that the DISC program, now that it has been adopted, will have on the Canadian economy, as the government has obviously been studying the various propositions that have been put forward and must have some idea of the effect that these proposals, one of which has been adopted, will have on our economy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce indicated last week that the effects of the DISC plan would be very varied according to the various hypotheses under which it would be applied. Now that they appear to have cut the effect of the operating aspect of DISC in half, it will probably have half that effect.


George Harris Hees: Has the government been in consultation with representatives of the provinces, business and labour to work out with them the most effective measures that could be adopted by this country to counteract these DISC measures?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the House knows that we have had meetings with the provinces, business and labour in recent weeks, and we discussed the American measures and their effect on Canada. However, these sectors of the economy do not have to work out their proposals in as concrete and effective a way as the federal government does. Therefore we have been seeking suggestions from them, but I cannot say that they were extremely precise.



UNITED STATES DISC LEGISLATION-POSSIBLE SHIFTING OF PRODUCTION TO UNITED STATES

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to know if the government intends to canvass the multinational corporations situated in Canada in order to ascertain their intentions regarding the DISC proposal and if there is to be a possible shifting of production from Canada to the United States? Has the government any intentions in this regard?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would have to defer to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who, personally and through his department, has been having consultations with various sectors of industry. I will refer the hon. member's question to him.



EFFECTS OF UNITED STATES DISC LEGISLATION ON AGRICULTURAL EXPORTS AND IMPORTS

Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view
December 13, 1971

Inquiries of the Ministry
of the decision of the United States to proceed with restrictive trade action under the DISC program, can the minister inform the House whether his department is studying these proposals for their possible effect on export of United States agricultural products to Canada and on our sales to them as well as the over-all effect on trade in farm products between the two countries?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, about all I can say at this time in replying to that question is yes, we are very concerned about this and are watching it very closely. Of course, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has the primary responsibility in this area.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: In view of the statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, if I understood him correctly, that discussions had been undertaken in regard to the effects of the tariff on rapeseed going into the United States, are discussions still going on in regard to this particular product?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member misunderstood the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He was talking about rapeseed, among other commodities, going to the European Economic Community and not the United States.



STATEMENT BY MINISTER OF MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION REGARDING ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT POWER-INQUIRY AS TO POLICY

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister if the Minister of Manpower and Immigration was enunciating government policy when he said at Saskatoon, as indicated in a news report, that the government must exercise additional power or more control over Parliament?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, he was perhaps thinking of the motion that the leader of the House was talking to a moment ago.


Gerald William Baldwin: Was he also speaking about exercising more control over Parliament, and did he have in mind the Senate as well?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. I think he had in mind getting rid of some of the useless backbenchers in the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Fairweather:: A Merry Christmas to you, too.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question on the matter of the Senate and on the exercising of control. Does the Prime Minister approve of the Minister of Finance having had a meeting with the Senate Finance Committee behind closed doors?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, surely the Senate can conduct its business in its own way. If the hon. member wants to have influence there, he must apply at the right door.


Gerald William Baldwin: Will any more bribes be offered?
24725-29.',



MANPOWER


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
As the maximum weekly wages are $100 according to the standards adopted by the department, as the decree of the Quebec construction committee prescribes a much higher salary, as allowances are paid persons taking training courses, in view of unemployment insurance, and as it has become very difficult for the municipalities to comply with the standards, will the minister announce in the near future a change in the maximum weekly wages of $100 which are not sufficient to ensure the worker his livelihood?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter, of course, is that certain salaries in many parts of the country exceed the $100 a week which is the maximum of the grant that can be paid under our local initiatives program. But this is simply an average and it is the maximum which we can grant. That does not exclude the payment of more to specific people within the program. The figure was set at that level in order to try to encourage the creation of the maximum number of jobs, particularly for those with lower skills, and it is doing just that. The flow of applications from people who are obviously able to meet the criteria is such that I see no need to make any change.



WELFARE


Mr. lames A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Does he propose to undertake an advertising campaign to explain national welfare programs and problems, and why does he feel such a campaign is necessary at this time?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we intend to mount such a program which will be more extensive than the one we have at present. I do not find anything unusual in this. I thought that one of the functions of the information services of government departments was to explain government policies to people of Canada. That is what we intend to do in this case.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary and perhaps related question. What assistance does the minister propose to give to the municipalities which will have an extremely heavy administrative burden placed upon them this winter in administering welfare under the Canada Assistance Plan as a consequence of the critically high unemployment in this country?

December 13, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, one of the advantages of the information program will be to make the Canadian people generally and thereby, of course, the municipalities, aware of the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan. I am afraid it is true even to this day that the awareness is not as complete as it should be. As a result of the program, I would think that municipalities could apply to the provinces for projects such as work activity projects that must be submitted to the federal government through the provinces in order to create the needed stimulus for employment that the opposition as well as the government desires.



CANCELLATION OF GRANT TO HAMILTON WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATION

George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister advise the House if he is planning to cut off any additional groups of applicants for welfare simply because they are too outspoken in their demands?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had examined the reasons for the discontinuance of this particular grant he would not have made such an inane statement.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I asked a simple question. Can the minister not answer yes or no?


John Carr Munro: At the moment we do not intend to cut off any further grants. That is at the moment. Some are under review.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the continued publicity and the general public concern about the cutting off of a $35,000 grant to a poor peoples' group in Hamilton, will the minister now tell the House the true story behind this whole thing?



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. On Friday, December 10, the anniversary of human rights day, the Prime Minister issued a statement having to do with the submission of a brief by the Human Rights League and the B'Nai B'rith Association, particularly in connection with three important documents that were voted for by Canada in 1966 having to do with human and civil rights. Since there has been a long period of consultation with the provinces over these documents leading toward eventual ratification and signing, could the Prime Minister indicate when we might expect to see some final action taken in this regard? Could he also indicate the procedures that will be taken? In view of the federal nature of the country, our approach might perhaps need to be a little different from the approach other countries might take.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the facts of the matter are that, since Canada voted for these conventions there has been consultation with the provinces and we have asked them to say to what degree they can support the federal government's signature and ratification of the two covenants. Some provinces agreed to go along with the federal government. Other provinces did not agree. We have continued the consultations. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has arranged to have ministers of provincial governments responsible for human rights attend United Nations sessions. We have tried in various other ways to convince the provinces of the importance of permitting Canada, as a federal country, to proceed with signature and ratification of these covenants. The Secretary of State for External Affairs wrote again last month to all provinces to see if they would hasten their acceptance of this procedure. As the House knows, there have been changes of governments in some provinces. Perhaps we will have more success this time around. I will gladly ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to report to the House in due course.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: It might be helpful if the Secretary of State for External Affairs could very shortly make a statement on motions indicating in some detail at least the major objections that have been raised on the part of the provinces, and indicating what procedures might be taken by the federal government in order to achieve the generally desired aim of ratifying and signing these important documents.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it was not a question of objections in all cases. In some cases they asked for further explanations. In other cases they did not answer. I believe in some cases some provinces refused to concur. As I said, some of these provincial governments may have changed their minds or may have changed themselves. That is why the Secretary of State for External Affairs has renewed his correspondence with them. I do not believe it will be possible at this time to make a statement in any detail about the position of these various provinces. I merely urge that any interested parties put pressure on the provinces rather than on the federal government at this time.



IMMIGRATION


Francis Andrew Brewin: My question is addressed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Will the minister instruct his officials to suspend the deportation proceedings pending against one Roosevelt Douglas, who has entered an appeal from his conviction to the Quebec Court of Appeal and has posted $14,000 bail that he will be available at the hearing of the appeal, at least until his appeal has been heard so that this man shall not be actually denied his right of appeal?
December 13, 1971


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. I think the proposition that deportation proceedings should be suspended is perhaps an impractical one. However, I can assure the hon. member that in my view deportation proceedings should in no way interfere with this man's ability to appear in connection with his appeal.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Has the minister taken advice from his colleague, the Minister of Justice, as to the propriety of deporting a person who has an appeal pending in the courts in relation to the very offence which is the basis for deportation?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I may have to discuss this question with the hon. member. I believe there is a bit of confusion between us as to which appeal we are talking about. I will be glad to take the matter up with him.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: I have a provocative supplementary question. When will this government cease to use the word "Liberal" to describe itself when situations like this are allowed?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ALLEGED MINISTERIAL PREFERENCE FOR NUCLEAR


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister. On page 9 of a speech made by the Minister of the Environment on December 9 he expressed strong preference for the use of the nuclear power to generate electricity. In other words, if there is an alternative, do not dam water to create hydro power. If this is now current government policy, what is the government's policy on the James Bay project? Is the government now against the James Bay project?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the minister was stating an opinion which is shared by a great many people. I do not think he was stating a constitutional doctrine whereby the federal government would tell provinces what they must do to generate energy. I think he was trying to create a climate of understanding for the future.



PROPOSED JAMES BAY HYDRO ELECTRIC PROJECT-APPLICATION UNDER NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION ACT

Gerald William Baldwin: Will the Prime Minister advise if the province of Quebec has yet applied under the Navigable Waters Protection Act or any other federal authority for requisite permission and filed the necessary plans in connection with this project?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I doubt it, Mr. Speaker, but I will make inquiries.
Inquiries of the Ministry



MINAS BASIN TIDAL POWER-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON NEGOTIATIONS WITH NOVA SCOTIA AND NEW BRUNSWICK

Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Will the Prime Minister indicate whether on the basis of this policy or this statement by the Minister of the Environment the thinking of the government is such as to include further negotiations with the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick with regard to the development of Minas Basin tidal power?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe this is under the jurisdiction of the minister. The question should more properly be addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.



FINANCE


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: In the absence of the Minister of Finance I will direct this question to his parliamentary secretary. Is it the intention of the Department of Finance to ask the province of Ontario to make a decision urgently regarding municipal use of the $160 million federal-provincial employment loan program?


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the government of Ontario is well aware of the necessity of their co-ordinating the grants to permit the municipalities in this province to participate in the program. We hope they will soon take some action to permit the municipalities to enjoy the benefits of the program, but the particular program to which the hon. member was referring does provide for provinces to apply for moneys from the federal government direct for their own purposes, as well as for purposes of lending to municipalities.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Is there anything within the criteria of this program prohibiting the province of Ontario from using this money for its own purposes and thereby not allowing it to be used by the municipalities which so desperately need it?


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, the money must go through the province to the municipalities.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact the minister alleged that one of the principal reasons for low corn prices in Ontario this year was the lack of storage facilities and the market glut during harvest time, will the minister indicate if he has endeavoured to persuade the eastern livestock and feed grain agency to move

December 13l 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
this surplus into the space that is available in the terminal elevators in eastern Canada, or is this space held exclusively for the movement of western feed grains?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I can check into the exact dates. Every year, of course, there is some allocation and reservation of space just prior to the closing of the seaway. I believe that early in the season there was no lack of space and no prohibition against that corn moving in there because of the space being reserved.



PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: My question is for the Secretary of State in his normal role as the traditional conduit of communication between the executives of the dominion government and the provincial governments. Since the government of Canada constitutionally has responsibility for the peace, order and good government of the country, has the minister conveyed to the Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland the message that that hon. gentleman's advisers have lost the confidence of the House of Assembly in that province and that certain actions normally and constitutionally must result therefrom?


Gérard Pelletier: No, Mr. Speaker.



MINI-TYPE SUBMARINE-ALLEGED CANCELLATION OF EXPORT PERMIT ISSUED TO INTERNATIONAL HYDRODYNAMICS

Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: In the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, I will address my question to his parliamentary secretary. Is it true that an export permit for International hydrodynamics of Vancouver to export a mini-type submarine to the Soviet Union has been cancelled? If so, can he say why this cancellation has been made?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The form of the question is somewhat defective. In any event, the parliamentary secretary might be allowed to reply on behalf of the minister.


Mr. Bruce Howard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the government is well aware of the importance of this subject to the country and to the company concerned. Normally, the department answers in the House on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays. I will be glad to convey the question to the minister and undertake that a full answer will be provided tomorrow.



CANADIAN CONTRIBUTION TOWARD SETTLEMENT OF UNITED STATES DIFFICULTIES

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in order to avoid any possible misunderstanding

I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs what the government has in mind by a general settlement as opposed to bilateral negotiation in connection with the United States surcharge. Can the Secretary of State indicate the kind of general settlement toward which Canada is prepared to make a contribution as alluded to in the statement he made to the House earlier this afternoon?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As the Leader of the Opposition knows, the United States has been faced with a very serious balance of payments problem and therefore took certain actions in order to defend its position. They have been discussing ways of getting out of this difficulty with various countries, particularly with Japan, the European Commission and certain other European countries such as Great Britain, as well as with ourselves. Each of us has been asked to make a contribution toward the solution of this problem in order that the United States may once again resume its posture of multilateralism, get rid of the restrictions it has placed on trade in order to deal with the balance of payments problem to which I have referred, and generally to resume the movement toward freer trade which is so much in our interests.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Might I ask the hon. gentleman specifically what contribution Canada has been asked to make toward this general settlement?


Mitchell William Sharp: There have been two kinds of discussions going on, one dealing with currencies. In this respect, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, the Minister of Finance has taken the view that by floating its currency some time ago Canada has already complied with the requirement the United States laid down. The United States has also been asking for certain changes to be made in the trading policies of various countries. Certain requests, which are now under discussion, have been made to us. We are looking at these matters. The Europeans are looking at another group. The Japanese are looking at another. I hope we shall all be able to agree, and that the United States will once again be able to resume its normal posture.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of United States Secretary of State Laird's recent offer of electronic and other sophisticated equipment to NATO countries to counter the build-up of Soviet armed forces in the North Atlantic and the Mediterranean, may I ask whether the President of the United States made the same offer to Canada during the general discussion which took place on this subject as outlined by the right hon. gentleman last week?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Make what same offer?
December 13, 1971


John (Jack) McIntosh: The offer of sophisticated electronic and related equipment as offered to other NATO countries.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would wish to defer to the Minister of National Defence, but there are a great many areas in which there is co-operation in this field and exchanges of scientific and technical information of military importance between our two countries.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. It concerns the Argentia task force. In view of the fact that this task force has not met since last May, can the hon. gentleman say whether it is still in existence and when we can expect a report?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: I will inquire and report to the hon. member.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, this question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of reported demands by the Farm Credit Corporation for repayment of overdue loans, accompanied by the statement that the corporation has the right to seize grain, and in view of offers made by producers to deliver grain to the Saskatoon office of the Farm Credit Corporation, can the minister say whether space has now been made available for the acceptance of grain in lieu of overdue payments to the Farm Credit Corporation?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There are no foreclosures being made on loans in Saskatchewan-I checked this a few days ago-unless they are more than four years in arrears. The FCC is not in a position to accept grain. The corporation made the loans in cash and expects repayment in cash.


John Leroy Skoberg: Would the minister accept a letter I have on file indicating exactly the opposite of what he has just told us?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I would be very interested to see it.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct the following question to the Minister
Inquiries of the Ministry
of Labour. In view of the continuing dissatisfaction expressed by labour groups and working people generally about delay in processing applications to the Unemployment Insurance Commission, often resulting in difficulties for municipalities who find themselves obliged to make welfare payments, will the minister undertake to bring in new procedures to expedite payment of unemployment benefits?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Despite the fact that we are processing over 98 per cent of the claims on time, within a week or ten days I shall be announcing procedures which I believe will help to alleviate the situation further. These will take effect about the middle of January and will permit us to pay claims at least a full week sooner than the law obliges us to do.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the government of Canada carrying on negotiations with the East German Republic with a view to giving diplomatic recognition to that state?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker.


ESTABLISHMENT OF PERMANENT MARKET
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. Since the European Economic Community and the United Kingdom comprise the largest cash market for imported grain in the world, has Canada established a permanent market intelligence service in those countries to help sell Canadian grain?


Otto Emil Lang: Our market intelligence service is already established in a number of countries all over the world. It includes the trade commission offices which perform a very valuable service. The Canadian Wheat Board itself has permanent representatives in London.


Jack Burnett Murta: I should like to ask the minister whether there is to be any positive move in the near future to establish marketing information and promotion posts on a permanent basis in the countries I have mentioned?


Otto Emil Lang: I have indicated that these are already established, so I do not know how I can answer that.

December 13, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


FOREIGN INVESTMENT-TIME OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF GOVERNMENT POLICY
Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to tell the House when we may expect the government's policy on foreign ownership to be tabled or brought to our attention in some appropriate manner?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have had no report from the Minister of National Revenue since I last mentioned this matter to the House.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Some weeks ago when I asked the Prime Minister the same question the right hon. gentleman indicated that within a week or ten days he would let the House know when a statement might be expected. Since he has now had an opportunity to meet with President Nixon and with the government of Ontario, can he tell us whether he is likely to be in a position to make a statement in the House before Parliament adjourns for the Christmas recess or before the end of the year?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is the essence of the matter. On the last occasion I said in the House that I had discussed this matter with the Minister of National Revenue but it was not certain then that the editing, translation and publishing would be completed before Christmas. I do not know whether it will be published while the House is still in session or whether we shall wait for the new session; it would depend on the time at which the House leaders can agree to terminate this present part of the session and when we shall be sitting again.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister. Having regard to the internal difficulties which he seems to be encountering, may I ask whether the right hon. gentleman has consulted with the cabinet with a view to leaking all the documents so that they can be before the public very quickly?


FINANCE
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Finance is absent, I shall put my question to his parliamentary secretary.
Since the Quebec government has won the main prize of $63 million loaned by the federal government to the province and since there is nothing left for municipalities, would the Parliamentary Secretary be in a position to say
(Mr. Lang.]
if additional funds might be allocated in order that Quebec municipalities be able to carry out their works program?


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: I shall look into that and have the minister respond to the hon. member at a later date.


FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES-PROVISION FOR SHARING COSTS WITH PROVINCES
Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the minister made specific costsharing proposals to the provincial governments for the delivery of family planning services?


John Carr Munro: There is already provision for such cost-sharing under the Canada Assistance Plan. I believe some provinces have taken advantage of it for some time.


INQUIRY AS TO FINAL REPORT OF LE DAIN COMMISSION-POSSIBLE INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In light of the alarming reports of the extent of heroin use in Canada and reports of pending government initiatives in combating heroin, can the minister inform the House when the Le Dain report will be made public?


John Carr Munro: I cannot, Mr. Speaker, other than to say that the chairman indicated to me that it will be several months before he will have the entire report ready.


Paul Yewchuk: Is the minister considering presenting legislation in the next session before the report on the non-medical use of drugs is tabled?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, no specific legislation is in mind at the moment, though that situation could change. As the hon. member is aware, there are many avenues for government action to cope with the mounting concern relative to drug abuse in Canada, other than legislation, and this type of action is now being taken by my department.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of
December 13, 1971

Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the very high levels of unemployment and the serious threat of further massive lay-offs this winter in Shawinigan, Trois-Rivieres and other communities in that part of Quebec, what steps is the government taking to alleviate this situation so that these people will not have to leave their homes in order to try to find employment?


Jean Marchand: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the government announced not long ago certain measures to increase the employment level. I further believe that a distinction should after all, be made between the general policy of the government in the economic field and the activity of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, which, of course, can be affected by the general policy, but which has so far been very effective.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON ALLEGATIONS BY QUEBEC FEDERATION OF LABOUR CONCERNING USE OF DEPARTMENTAL FUNDS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. ]ohn Burton (Regina East): Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. In view of the revelations made by the Quebec Federation of Labour that the industrial development strategy of the department channels public funds away from the most depressed areas, among a number of other charges, would the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion be willing to make a statement on motions at the earliest possible date dealing with the various points that have been raised?
Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the report of the Quebec Federation of Labour, in this regard, is at best political propaganda because it has no founding, either at the economic level or as concerns the carrying out of our programs.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF ANALYSIS OF PROJECTS
[Stage Direction]
Mr.John Burton (Regina East): A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister consider tabling his own or the department's analysis of the impact of these projects so that we might give them adequate consideration?
Mr. Marchand (Langlier):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wanted to do his duty he could see every month that the funds of the department are expended in underdeveloped areas, and not in the big cities.


John Stratford Burton: A question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Regina East is rising on a question of privilege.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I have read every monthly report the minister has published and they fail to shed one ray of light on what the department is doing.
Income Tax Act GRAIN


CORN-INQUIRY AS TO ANNOUNCEMENT ON CONSTRUCTION OF STORAGE FACILITIES
Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that time is so important and representations have been made to the government regarding increased write-offs on construction of storage space for grain, particularly corn, would the minister say when an announcement can be expected in this regard?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the exact date that an announcement will be made, but I can tell the hon. member that we are working on the matter very actively and that I hope it will be soon.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, December 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Benson for the third reading of Bill C-259, to amend the Income Tax Act and to make certain provisions and alterations in the statute law related to or consequential upon the amendments to that act, and the amendment of Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West) (p. 10363) and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Burton (p. 10370).
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I was sorry not to be in the House on Friday when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) spoke on the third reading of the tax bill.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Where were you?


Mr. Ricard:: None of your business.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am happy to see hon. members opposite taking a great interest in my whereabouts; that is very encouraging. I understand that I missed an interesting performance in this House. At least one commentator, whose report I read over the weekend, accused the Minister of Finance of indulging in a certain amount of bullying. With all due respect, I would disagree with that commentator having now read the minister's speech. The minister may have felt that he was being tough and ruthless but, after all, if you are going to be that you must have something more going for you than just a parliamentary majority. You have to have some arguments as well; you must have at least a little logic on your side. If you do not have that on your side, then all the bluster in the world will not help you very much.
This is why, being as charitable as I can, I would describe the minister's performance really as an exercise in desperation. He spent, of course, very little time praising the bill, and I do not criticize him for that.
10402

December 13, 1971
Income Tax Act


An hon. Member:: Are you going to tear it up too?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the physical damage that this bill can do is one of its least dangers. I really did not expect the minister to spend very much time defending a bill of this sort. Rather he took it upon himself to attack the critics of the bill. Instead of upholding the government, he undertook to denounce the opposition. That surely is as clear an indication as any that this bill is being foisted upon the House and the Canadian public, not because of any intrinsic merit but rather because of its political significance.
I thought the minister felt constrained to make a rather bitter speech on Friday because it seemed to him to be the natural thing to do under the circumstances-to lash out in all directions. He was speaking not so much as Minister of Finance of Canada as he was as defender of the political image of his party. As a taxpayer, I might be rather upset at the attitude displayed by the Minister of Finance on Friday. But as the Leader of the Opposition in this House, I cannot complain at all. On the contrary, I ought to welcome the minister's attacks because they show more clearly than anything else that this bill is being pushed through now not because of any economic, human or social need, but because the government needs a political face-saving device, and this bill is it. This government feels the need to prove to its supporters and to its backbenchers that after a long series of failures it can get something through this House, and this is the way it is doing it. It does not matter that by the admission of its sponsor the bill is in a very unfinished state. He recognizes and admits that it will be subject to many more amendments.
It does not matter, Mr. Speaker, that much of this bill is a mystery. Their attitude is to push the bill through and let the taxpayer figure it out. That may be a rather sick attitude but when you are determined to make a political point, as this government obviously is, that is a secondary matter. Sir, what is going on now in this House, the proceedings that are being followed and the bill which will come out eventually, is not a defeat for the opposition but a defeat for the Canadian people and the Canadian people will not forget.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister says that the bill could not be split for purposes of proclamation because this might cause some confusion for the people charged with the administration of the tax law. I concede that, Mr. Speaker; I concede, too, that it might cause some uncertainty in the minds of the taxpayers but what about the confusion that most of this bill is going to engender among the taxpayers of Canada? What about the confusion and uncertainty that this government has already caused? I do not want to add unnecessarily to the burden of any civil servants, but if I must choose between doing that and foisting on the public a bill as confused, as complex as this one presently is, then I have no difficulty making the choice.
Early in the year the Minister of Finance said and I quote, "Tax reform will come into effect on January 1, 1972, no matter what".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: When did he say that?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am quoting the Minister of Finance.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: A headline in the Financial Post.


An hon. Member:: That is from Colin Brown.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Don't get too excited now, boys. All the minister did was forecast exactly what hon. gentlemen opposite were going to do eventually-put it through, come what may. The minister referred to some comments that I made earlier in the year about the necessity of getting rid of uncertainty in order to restore some confidence in the economy and that was right, Mr. Speaker. Certainly, there was a need to restore confidence.
If the hon. gentleman opposite wants a pulpit he can have one in a few minutes.


An hon. Member:: He lost that.


Mr. Osier:: Give us the source.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, there is no question about the importance of removing uncertainty as far as the economy is concerned. There is no doubt about that at all. But it is going a little far when the Minister of Finance introduces a bill-which hardly anybody in the country understands, pretends that he has removed the uncertainty, and then says I have no right to complain about that uncertainty because he is insisting that the bill go into effect on January 1 next.


Edmund Boyd Osler: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre rises on a point of order.


Edmund Boyd Osler: It would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that having had a quotation repeated over and over again, the House is entitled to the source.


Mr. Perrault:: You have to withdraw it unless you do.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Just because the boss is in the House and you want a promotion-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In a speech on Friday last, the minister made much of the fact that we on this side of the House had agreed that the legislation before us is not as bad as the original white paper on tax reform. That is true, but it is praising this bill with very faint praise. Certainly, we cheered on this side of the House when the government retreated from the white paper, but I must say that neither we nor hon. gentlemen opposite expected the white paper to be replaced by this. What we have to remember is that evidently the same people who drew up the white paper were involved in drafting this bill. Given their ideas, as exemplified in the white paper, I do not blame them personally at all but their involvement in the present bill surely makes it all the more urgent that those of us with other ideas should examine this bill as closely as we can, clause by clause, to make sure that the proposals that have been pushed out by the front door do not get in through the back door.
December 13, 1971


J. Michael Forrestall: That is what is happening.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We fought the white paper from the start, Mr. Speaker. We are fighting this bill in part for the same reasons, but in part because not one of those members over there who are making so much noise right now and nobody in this House, understands what is in this bill. Indeed, few people, if any, in the whole country understand this bill. We are fighting it because it is a confusing piece of legislation which, far from clearing up the tax jungle, only makes it deeper and darker than before. We are fighting it, too, because in many cases it is unjust. It is true that the government made some eleventh hour changes with regard to co-operatives and credit unions, but would those have been made if the bill had not been fought by the opposition parties? When the government House leader announced his intention to impose closure he also announced that amendments to this bill would be introduced.
There are still other injustices, Sir, such as the injustices to farmers which the amendment moved by the hon. member for Edmonton West is intended to correct. There are also injustices to small businessmen and others. We are fighting this bill because regardless of how the minister preens, there has been no agreement or understanding with the provinces on how the Canadian taxpayer is going to be taxed by both levels of government. There is still confusion on how the provincial structures will fit in with the proposed federal structure, if I may refer to this bill in such a euphemistic way. The province of Ontario has its own corporate income tax, and the province of Quebec has its own corporate and personal income tax, while the province of Nova Scotia has a collection agreement and has gone along with federal taxation.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: So has Ontario.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: So has Ontario with regard to personal income tax but not with regard to corporation tax, Mr. Speaker. We are being asked to allow this government to run this bill through the House with no assurance at all-


An hon. Member:: After three months.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -on what the Canadian taxpayer will have to face. While this may be personally satisfactory to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, it is not satisfactory to me nor will it be satisfactory to the Canadian taxpayer.


Gerald William Baldwin: Nor to his constituents.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: There is still confusion as to estate taxes and succession duties. I think it is agreed that if we are to have a capital gains tax, there must be adjustments in estate taxes and succession duties. The Minister of Finance has simply left this to the provinces. There has been no understanding reached concerning what the government is to have in the way of succession duties on top of the capital gains tax proposed in this bill. Yet, that does not slow down this government at all in its effort to ram this bill through the House, again leaving the taxpayers confused and in a tax jungle.


An hon. Member:: Read the bill. You never read it.


J. Michael Forrestall: Read the Magna Carter over again.
Income Tax Act


Edmund Boyd Osler: How long would you wait for the provinces to agree?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks how long I would wait. If I were the Minister of Finance of this country and wanted to introduce a capital gains lax, recognizing that the capital gains tax and the succession duties were to be integrated, I would at least try to achieve that result and would not use closure to force it through the House.
Furthermore we oppose this bill because much of it is at best irrelevant to the current problems in Canada. While the government has been taking up the time of the House in past months, what has it outlined to curb unemployment and straighten out our trade relations with other countries?


George Harris Hees: Nothing.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is right. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings correctly said "nothing". Judging from the performance of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) when he was questioned about the attitude of Canada toward working out a solution of the so-called surtax problem, the government has not only not done anything but apparently is not very much aware of what is going on. While the government is taking the time of this House week after week after week with this bill, what does it have to say about a strategy for economic development which is so crucial to our country? Once again the answer is clear-nothing positive. We are fighting the bill because the best thing that can be said about it is that much of it is irrelevant to our current Canadian political priorities and economic priorities.
I am afraid that much worse than that will have to be said about the bill. It will constitute a dangerous curb on Canadian initiative and on the incentives which stimulate economic growth. We are continuing to oppose the bill on third reading because we have heard nothing during the debate so far that would make us change our minds about the serious drawbacks in it. On the contrary, the political act in which the government has indulged in bringing in closure has convinced me more than ever that we were right to insist upon debating this bill thoroughly and are right now, since the debate has been cut off or limited, in opposing the bill, particularly since the government and its supporters insist on ramming through a bill which not one of them even pretends to understand. As will be clear, I do not always agree with hon. members opposite, but I must say that the hon. member for York North (Mr. Danson) seemed to express our attitude pretty well over the weekend-at least as he was reported in the press. I say that advisedly because I do not want to attribute something to him that the press may or may not have reported accurately.
When the hon. member for York North says that this bill is not tax reform at all, I believe we all agree. When he was reported to have said that there is no way in which you can have a reasonable tax payment if you do not know what your economic goals are, I agree with that, too. Then he went on to say that the government has no economic goals-that statement is attributed to him by the press-and that it was supplying piecemeal tax legislation, a piecemeal approach to the Competition Act and pre-

December 13, 1971
10404_____________________ _________
Income Tax Act
sumably a piecemeal attack on the problem of foreign ownership. I agree. This is what we have been attempting to tell the government for months. I wonder how many government supporters feel the same way.


Mr. McBride:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, when the Leader of the Opposition referred to the hon. member for York North, I wonder whether he intended to refer to the hon. member for York Simcoe (Mr. Roberts).


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, there are so many hon. members disagreeing with the government these days that it is difficult to keep them straight. I will be happy to accept the correction of the hon. member for Lanark. I think it was the hon. member for York Simcoe. I thank the hon. member for his helpful correction. I will be happy to receive any correction from him at any time that is helpful. I submit that the point is made very effectively by the hon. member to whom I have referred.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you quote Hees?


George Harris Hees: He has.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If you do not know what your economic goals and your economic strategy are, then you do not have an effective tax reform. I wonder how many other members do not support the government and agree with the hon. member for York-Simcoe. If some hon. members do, I think they should have the courage to tell this House and the Canadian people what they think of this legislation. On behalf of the Canadian people, and on behalf of the Canadian economy, I ask and indeed I challenge them to do so without any further delay.
One of the most incredible things about this legislation is that even while it was being jammed down our throats and the throats of the Canadian people, the government blandly announced it intended to make even more changes. Part of the reason for this, of course was to head off the Senate at the pass. I suppose the minister is secretly conferring with the Senate now, but that is for them to deal with and not me. Sure, there are going to be lots more amendments to this bill. More were announced or indicated, as I say, even after the minister introduced the discussion on thrid reading of the bill, following the use of closure at the committee stage and the indication that closure would be used at the third reading stage. How much further can the government go in showing its contempt for its own supporters in the House, and how much further can the government go in showing its contempt for the law itself?
Of course, there will be many more amendments to this bill but the Minister of Finance in defending himself says we will not know how much this bill needs to be changed until we try it out on the Canadian people. Can you imagine that! The Minister of Finance Justifies pressing ahead with the bill, with all the amendments that have had to be made, despite the fact that nobody understands many of the provisions of the bill. He justifies it on the basis that we will not know what amendments need be made until we try it out on the Canadian people. Well, sir, there you have the Minister of Finance unintentionally summing up the government's whole attitude toward the Canadian taxpayer who is to be a guinea pig to be used as the government may see fit.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The government has charged those of us in the official opposition with practising obstructionism. The minister carefully excluded us, the Progressive Conservative Members of Parliament, from the fulsome thanks he gave to just about anybody else within a ten miles radius of his voice last Friday. I may say that I was grateful to the minister for excluding us from his praise, because I would have been embarrassed if he had graced us in any way. But I must say that since we played some part in forcing the government to back away from much of the original white paper, I do not think that was any mean contribution that we made to tax reform in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: They seem to be rather excited, Mr. Speaker. If they were a little less excited about what I am saying, and a little more excited about treating the Canadian taxpayers carefully, they would be a little more justified in remaining the government of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I can certainly do without the thanks of the Minister of Finance. I certainly prefer to have the thanks of Canadian people when the Canadian people realize how we fought against the birth of this monstrosity which, apparently, will occur on January 1.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Are you against the tax cuts, also?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Well, well. There is my friend, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), back in the House.


J. Michael Forrestall: He is leaving us shortly. Don't be hard on him.


Harold Warren Danforth: He does not know any more about taxes than about agriculture.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The Minister of Finance has no justification for rising in the House and talking about obstructionism in connection with a bill-


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: He really got to you.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -to which 97 amendments were introduced on October 22; on October 29, 28 more amendments were introduced, and on November 16, 8 more amendments were introduced, some of them amendments to previous amendments. Then, the government House leader gave notice of further amendments when he introduced notice of closure. When the Minister of Finance made a speech on Friday, he indicated half a dozen areas in which further amendments will be needed. Yes, we have the absurdity of the Minister of Finance charging obstructionism under these circumstances. When one considers how much worse the bill would be than it is today if the government had not been forced to consider some of these matters, I think that the time has been very well spent indeed. The only thing we are trying to obstruct is the government's mad haste to put through, for strictly political reasons, a measure that in its totality can only
December 13. 1971

hurt much of the Canadian economy and further confuse and complicate the lives of millions of Canadian taxpayers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We made it clear from the start-and I speak now through you, Sir, to the wide open ears of the Minister of Agriculture-that we welcomed parts of the bill such as, for example, the improved exemptions and assistance for the aged. I can take the minister through quite a list of things that we would be prepared to pass very quickly.


Gerald William Baldwin: We suggested it first a year ago.


George Harris Hees: We have been pressing and pressing for it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What we want is something quite different from the aims of the present government. What we want is to have reform recognize the importance of the spirit of initiative and that this be the main source of economic growth in the country. What we want from tax reform is clear recognition that a prosperous and growing economy is, in the last analysis, the only way to ensure social justice. It will not ensure social justice by itself but it is a necessary foundation for social justice. The greatest social priority in Canada today is jobs. Nobody doubts that, following the statements contained in the report of the Economic Council of Canada. May I say to the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. McBride) that the greatest achievement of the government he supports has been the creation of massive unemployment.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Your Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) even said it took courage to do that.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: According to the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton, the unemployment shown by the statistics is just imaginary, and the only trouble is that there are too many people looking for work.
What we want from tax reform is, among other things, the recognition that some social traditions, one of them being the family farm, should be protected and not destroyed.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: We have been telling you that for years.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What we want from tax reform is something that takes account of the priorities that we shall be setting ourselves as a country in the coming years, including the development of an industrial strategy, which we do not have, which the government does not have, and which the government does not know how to develop. That is what we want from tax reform. The trouble with this government is that someone programmed it back in 1968 in accordance with what someone deemed to be the priorities in 1968. The government has been on the same program ever since, and this has resulted in disaster to the country and in the government being completely unable to respond to the difficulties and the priorities that have faced this country.


Edmund Boyd Osler: You said we did not have a program.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The government had a disastrous program. A minute ago I gave the government credit for
Income Tax Act
creating massive unemployment. That was part of its program. Because of the importance of tax reform being related to the goals of the country, we remain opposed to a measure that is described as a tax reform bill, the only result of which is to complicate things. We will continue to ask the government to split the bill, and we ask members of all parties to support this request. We have asked, and continue to ask, that the bill be amended so as to take into consideration the problems of the farmers in this country. Therefore I ask members of all parties to support the amendment of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert).
Sir, let me simply say in closing that what we are up against is a question of whether we are going to implement a tax policy which is designed to encourage the people of this country to meet the economic priorities of this country or whether, on the other hand, the people who drafted this monstrosity are going to have the per-sonsal satisfaction of seeing it rammed through this House with disastrous consequences to this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr.   Fernand-E. Leblanc@Laurier: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs which worked very hard studying the white paper on fiscal reform and preparing recommendations, I am pleased to participate in the debate and to congratulate the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) who availed himself of several of the committee's recommendations when drafting Bill C-259. I was proud to be on that committee, although its members had to sacrifice a whole summer for the benefit of all Canadians.
Friday, when I was in the House, we heard the remarks of representatives of the three opposition parties, namely the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) and the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau).
The speech of the hon. member for Shefford was, in my opinion-I regret that he is not here-vacuous and insipid.
In case I might have misunderstood his speech, I read it again this morning, but unfortunately it leaves no room for doubt. Allow me to explain.
The speech was in two parts. In the first part, the hon. member for Shefford gave us the same old story, and in some cases misinterpreted the bill before us. In the second part, he quoted the editorial of the November 1971 issue of the journal of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants entitled "On the brink of fiscal disaster". And I noticed on page 10,372 of Hansard that the hon. member for Shefford attacked me personally-I quote:
I would rather trust the Chartered Accountants Association than a single accountant who has to follow the steam-roller.
Now, if by "single accountant" the hon. member for Sheffort means an accountant who is a member of an association, I have no objection to his saying so. However, If he wants to imply that I lack ability, I will reply to him, a weak minded, that he lacks the good sense to be able to determine if a chartered accountant is competent or not.

December 13, 1971
Income Tax Act
He pointed out the last paragraph of an editorial that suggests that hon. members take the course given by the CICA on tax reform. Well, CICA members-and I commend them for it-came here to give a full day's course to hon. members and that, at their own expense. I do not recall having seen a single Creditiste member attend this course. Where were they? How interested are they in this bill? How can they understand it, since they don't even go to the official information sources, which is not a partisan source.
This morning in the Montreal Journal I read that Credi-tistes sent a letter to the editor, Mr. Jacques Guay. A biology professor of the d'Iberville polyvalent school in Rouyn, said this:
You say loud and clear what many people think of Caouetteism, specially us in the north who are stuck with such a cave-man. You take sides with a good many of us who do not dare attack the "fuhrer" for fear of reprisals. You know that in small towns, everybody knows everything; our Real has informers everywhere, his own little Gestapo.
Mr. Robert Gobeil, on de Maisonneuve Street, Montreal, has this to say:
Mr. Caouette said that in Canada we are free to write anything but should he ever become Prime Minister-we would surely have our own little Pravda, because a reactionary party such as his, that advocates the death penalty as a deterrent against crime, would be forced to abolish the freedom of speech to remain in power-
There are other quotations. I do not think they are very relevant, but nonetheless I wanted to point out to Credi-tistes that they do not have the monopoly of truth in the province of Quebec and that in the next election, of course, they will have trouble getting one or two members elected.
Recently, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray) made a speech at the conference of the Canadian Tax Foundation and explained the steps taken by the department for the application of the new bill. He especially mentioned that the administration had been reorganized within the department itself, that an advisory tax committee had been created, that two new publications had been started: the information circular and the interpretation bulletin. Further on, in a spirit of open-mindedness he said, as recorded on page 14 of his speech, and I quote:
Therefore, in order to facilitate a smooth transition to the new rules, we have decided to agree to all requests received by the department to have a current fiscal year period end in 1971, provided they are made before December 31, 1971.
The CICA editorial dealt precisely with the problem which might arise should the department be unable to grant a longer period to accountants, to tax advisers, to all those closely interested in the question so that they may have time to digest the new complexities of the bill and to advise their clients. Especially as far as undistributed income on hand existing at the end of the fiscal year 1971 is concerned, it would seem that profit derived during a fiscal year prior to December 31, 1971 would not be taken into account in the undistributed income for a differed tax payment of only 15 per cent. If that is the case the department could, at this moment, give accountants and tax experts some more time to determine whether they should advise their customers to alter their fiscal year. At present, it takes quite a while to review the records and it

seems to me that perhaps it would be advisable to allow some more time.
Of course there would be another possibility: one could perhaps interpret a section of the bill in such a way that the amount of profits accrued up to December 31, 1971 would be spread on a daily basis, even if the fiscal year differs from the calendar year, as they do for income tax purposes. If the present situation continues, if there is no rectification, there could be discrimination against small businesses which do not have, on a daily basis, the services of advisers to tell them what they should do in the future in the light of the changes proposed in the bill.
The member for Regina East defined quite well the philosophy of his party, with which we cannot agree. I noticed that he attacked the parties of the opposition, especially the Progressive Conservative party. I therefore told myself that as the parties of the opposition cannot agree, it is a good thing that a time limit has been set for the debate, otherwise it would have gone on indefinitely.
A limit has also been set for third reading of the bill. This should be done more often. The people of Canada have the right to expect us to do something here in Parliament. But, when there is an abundance of speeches, as was the case with Bill C-176, we do not produce. So, since we have that tool at our disposal, we should use it more often, as does the British Parliament besides.
Obviously, I am against the amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Regina East, not because it clarifies a point contained in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Edmonton West, but because the hon. member supports the principle that the bill should be referred back to the committee of the whole. If that amendment were adopted, chaos would prevail in this country, because businessmen have made plans taking into account the bill now under study and the tax experts, who have been working on it since July 15 or thereabouts, have spent a lot of money to understand the full scope of the proposal. Therefore, as the people expect it, this bill should come into force on January 1, 1972, as expected.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Will the province of Quebec be ready?


Mr. Leblanc (Laurier):: The hon. member for Edmonton West often refers to the co-operation of provinces and especially of Quebec. I have already answered a point which he had raised in that connection.
Now, perhaps there is fact of which he is unaware and I would like to let him know that for over three weeks, the Department of National Revenue has been giving courses to Quebec tax inspectors. Those people have been sent to Ottawa to study the effects of the bill and to make recommendations to the provincial authorities, if necessary.
I had the opportunity of meeting three of those provincial tax inspectors in my office Wednesday night after the committee of the whole had completed consideration of the bill. They told me that they had undertaken their third week of the course and that chartered accountants of other provinces were also attending them.
December 13, 1971

I think that it is an example of co-operation between the federal and provincial governments. Moreover, I cannot see at all why it is suggested that there has been no co-operation between the provinces.
Indeed, the Minister of Finance has declared in his speech that he has approached several times his provincial counterparts in order to discuss Bill C-259.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Would the hon. member allow a question?


Fernand-E. Leblanc: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Would the hon. member assure me that Quebec Finance Department officials can exert enough influence on that province's government to persuade them to amend their corporate income tax legislation so that some common basis may be found to the provincial and federal legislations?


Fernand-E. Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, if the provincial authorities would delegate their representatives to Ottawa to consider the effects of Bill C-259, I am convinced that they will be provided with some authority and will later on submit reports on the studies they have made. These reports would pave the way for the amendment of Quebec's tax legislation in the same manner as the report of the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs has helped to prepare Bill C-259.
I do not, of course, understand the arguments of political opponents who object to this bill when more than one million taxpayers will be struck off the tax rolls as from January 1, 1972 and another five million will pay reduced taxes. I fail to understand how they will be able to explain that to six million Canadians.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You are very far from the truth.


Mr. Rod Thomson (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, since I am one of those useless backbenchers the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) mentioned during the question period, I do not know whether I should take part in the debate on this tax bill. However, I take comfort from knowing that I count for something. I come from a part of the country where everyone is considered to be important. I share that feeling. Therefore, the Prime Minister's statement did not bother me too much. Perhaps on the other side of the House my view of the importance of the backbencher is not shared by hon. members. If hon. members on that side think that the backbencher is not considered to be important, they should do something about it.


Mr. Benjamin:: Especially since they know they will soon be on the opposition side of the House.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Of course, the Prime Minister may have expressed his feeling about backbenchers on his own side of the House. He does not have to worry about them very much.
One of my reasons for wanting to speak on this bill, and I will only talk about two items, is that I represent, hopefully, the common people, the average men of my constituency. As I said earlier, the average man of Canada is important. I should like to convey to the parliamentary
Income Tax Act
secretary some of the fears of average men. Some of them are afraid of some parts of the bill. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and others in the House have already dealt fully with the over-all picture. Speaking as a farmer, I suggest that farmers are concerned, as is logical, about how tax changes with regard to basic herds will affect them. Of course, I am talking about basic herds of cattle. Being a farmer, I know something about the concept of the basic herd. I tried at one time to establish a basic herd, but I never did. It was so difficult that I gave it up. Nevertheless, the principles involved here are important, because most farmers establish their basic herds when they are young and their earning power is not high. They scrimp and save money from their small incomes to establish this basic asset. Later, when they wish to dispose of this herd, they are a bit richer. Hopefully, their income position has improved by that time. Therefore, when they sell these cattle, they must pay income tax at a much higher rate than they would have paid if the herd had been sold previously. Logically, I say, that is unfair.
That is how I feel, and I hope the parliamentary secretary will recognize this particular problem. I do not suggest that the solution is easy, and I do not suggest that the basic herd concept, as such, should necessarily be retained. However, I think we should recognize the principle that the basic herd is, in a sense, a depreciable asset, or that it can be established as a depreciable asset. We have failed to impress this on the government and, by allowing things to continue as at present, inequities will be created. I suggest, in logic, that the government should again look at this part of the bill.
Secondly, I want to talk briefly about the capital gains tax, and especially how that tax may apply to a farm when a father passes it on to his son. Of course, if a man makes a large capital gain, he should pay tax on it. In principle, I do not object to this. However, if the capital value of a farm or of a company remains constant over the years, and if the farm or the company stays the same size, it should not be valued on the basis of a different or larger size. That is what we are concerned about. If the value of a farm goes up as a result of inflation, but the size of the farm or real income do not increase, it is not logical that a man should have to pay a capital gains tax, particularly when a farm goes from father to son or follows any such line of succession. In addition to talking about farms, we should be talking about small businesses as well.
I advance this argument for another reason. A large company has a different way of raising capital. Let me give an example of this. If a man's business expands from one department store to five or six, he can sell shares in the market or obtain his capital in some other fashion. This course is not open at the present time to farmers and small businessmen. If there were some practical method of arriving at capital value when turning over a business or farm from father to son, there would be less concern.
I wish to deal with one other point. The experience of farmers in connection with how the act has been administered, particularly with regard to death duties, has not always been good. They sometimes feel put upon because of the values established by the departmental officials. I am not necessarily concerned about how the act is drawn,

December 13, 1971
Income Tax Act
but how it will be administered. There are at least opportunities for problems to develop in this area. If the bill is passed in its present form, we will have to look carefully at the way it is administered in the future. An example of the type of administration to which I am referring concerns a man who died and left four houses in a small prairie town. The tax people came from Saskatoon and placed a value on these houses similar to the values in Saskatoon. To prove that these houses were not worth that much money, the heirs tried to sell them but could not even obtain a bid on the houses. In spite of this, the tax people insisted this was the value on which death duties would be paid. There has been some inequity in the administration of this particular law in the past. The officials did not use the market value because the people could not sell these houses at the values which had been placed upon them. Logically, the heirs should not have to pay the tax on that valuation, but that was the basis used. When we talk about capital gains, and what might happen when turning over a family farm from father to son, we are concerned because of the way in which the present law has been administered.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, this is the third reading stage of this famous bill and I believe it is my duty to speak on this occasion and to emphasize once more the inconsequence shown by this government in forcing the House to accept this badly worded, badly drafted and confused bill. In fact, this is a bill about which we still wonder to what degree it is going to be unfair to the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, it is easy to say that one million Canadians will be exempted from income tax; it is a way of altering the real basic problems that this bill tries to solve. We must know what is meant by one million Canadians being taken off the rolls, which seems what the government is counting on in this bill.
Canadian families with a $2,500 or $3,000 yearly income and having three, four or five children are not paying any tax at the present time. When it is definitely established that these people are not paying any tax, I do not believe one can state that one million Canadians will be exempted from income tax. It is not true and I think it is intellectually dishonest to count on that. All the more so as another class of people, certain wage-earners, will derive so little benefit from this bill that I am wondering once more to what extent some people honestly count on such an argument, for most of the people who will get a tax decrease will save only $15, $20, $25 per year. Is it worth emphasizing so much that a few thousand persons will pay $15 less in tax this year?
Why not talk instead about the additional billion dollars that the government will collect under this new bill? You do not hear too much about this but in the final analysis this bill is simply the concrete and actual result of a series of mathematical acrobatics to go deeper in the pockets of the Canadian taxpayer. This is the kind of reform we are presently considering. So we have all the reasons in the world to oppose it.
First, we are opposed to the manner in which the government is trying to ram the bill through the House by a

set date. Mr. Speaker, this is absolutely irrational. Here we are considering a bill of 732 pages when the usual bill might go up to 40 or 50 pages. This voluminous bill is equivalent to 25 or 30 normal bills. Since when is it against the rules to take the time required to study 10, 15, 20, 25 or 30 bills? It is not because there are innumerable issues in a single bill that we should consider it with great speed, thoughtlessly and in great haste. Again, when the government is actually trying to convince the people of Canada that its action is appropriate because the time of the House is being taken up to debate such a bill, it is being dishonest. The whole population should be told what it is all about.
When a bill calls for so many changes on top of being so badly drafted and conceived it is quite normal to take the time necessary to bring in the required corrections. We have irrefutable proof of this- what would have actually happened to the clauses on co-ops, caisses populaires and credit unions if the opposition had not opposed vigourous-'-ly those clauses dealing with taxation of caisses populaires? Did we not succeeded in making the government understand and, at last, agree to amend these sections so as to make them more in line with the economic realities which those financial institutions represent?
This is a glaring example which shows that a study was required and that opposition action was becoming essential and the proof that we were right to insist on having other sections amended. If we have so much insisted on having them amended also, or on having their coming into force deferred, it is because we knew we were right. It is not because we are told that, from now on, we shall have one or two days to discuss this bill that we must agree with the government. To agree we were right in such a manner would be to show weakness and I think that this government is not showing strength but weakness. Because it cannot adequately defend its bill it would rather impose it. I think this is how the government is acting.
The dishonesty shown by the government not only in preventing hon. members from further discussion of this bill but-and this is the most terrible thing-in forcing the Canadian people to fight their way through this maze of sections on income tax is one way of laughing at them.
As indicated by the amendment under discussion, we must see in this bill the extraordinary difficulties that certain segments of our society, including our farmers, will meet from all sides. And when you are aware of their special situation and of the difficulties they are faced with, I feel that imposing on them new methods for computing their taxes amounts to moving backwards, to putting a spoke in the wheels of this country's agriculture, in other words to regressing, a policy which the government shall regret sooner or later.
Because the minister says that this bill has to come into force for the government to see how it works and how to amend it later, there is no need for us to pass it. His alleged guarantee will not convince us, nor the Canadian people, that this legislation is good.
Mr. Speaker, such arguments are seldom heard. In brief, the minister is telling us: we do not know exactly if this legislation is good; we think it is; in any case, if we put it into force, we shall see. I do not believe that a legislation
December 13. 1971

should be based on such premises. I think that the reasoning behind it should rather be the following: Let us enact on January 1, 1972 all those clauses of the legislation which carry some unanimity, especially those which benefit mostly the small wage earner even if, as I said earlier, that this is merely playing upon words. Anyway, let us apply the clauses whose consequences we know for sure and avoid submitting many Canadians to huge fiscal problems.
I believe that the opposition is quite right in denouncing the way the government is proceeding.
Yesterday, I heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) mention that his government could not act the same way as its predecessor-that is Mr. Pearson's government, which had to allow the opposition acting as it fancied- and that he himself, with his own government, was ready to assume his responsibilities according to parliamentary laws. This is another way of bluffing and having people believe that Standing Order 75c is quite commonplace and can be applied without fuss.
Once more, Mr. Speaker, the government forgets to indicate that it is far more important to know exactly what to think of this tax reform. It seems to me that in order to conceal the drawbacks and shortcomings as well as the adverse effects of the bill before us, the government is trying to draw the attention of Canadians to the rule of closure rather than to the substance of the bill itself. This is a means for them to divert attention and to avoid facing their responsibilities.
The Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), and all other members of the government ought to explain to taxpayers what filing an income tax return will mean in the future. The sponsor of this bill should indicate what a capital gain is, and how much extra it will cost wage earners and small businesses. But they are very careful not to say anything about this. Instead, they try to play politics, as was shown earlier by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Leblanc), who, because the three parties of the opposition do not agree on all sections, assumes that he is right.
Who has ever heard such a thing, Mr. Speaker. People have elected members of the Social Credit, the New Democratic and the Progressive Conservative parties because they thought that was the right thing to do. They did not elect us, saying: Get along with the members of the Progressive Conservative party or the members of the New Democratic Party. That is not necessarily the mandate we were given. To say that the government is right because all the opposition members do not agree on some sections of the bill amounts in my opinion to an attempt to alter the course of the debate. In fact they try to bluff all Canadians by saying: In spite of the opposition we offer you something which is good.
Mr. Speaker, would this measure be opposed if it were such a good one? It is opposed because one knows that basically the Canadian people will have to bear the consequences of the fiscal reform. We therefore assume our responsibilities and say here what our fellow citizens in our respective electoral districts want us to say. It is well known that the majority of the people do not want irresponsible tax increases. They are quite prepared to pay their share but they want to know exactly where they
Income Tax Act
stand. It is therefore a mistake to aggravate them with the sections of a bill which not only makes nothing clear but definitely will impoverish everyone.
If the purpose is to stimulate the country's economic development, that is the wrong way to go about it and it is therefore our duty to oppose the unsuitable provisions of the bill.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, I rise to give my wholehearted support to the amendment proposed by my colleague which is designed, as a last stand attempt, to bring to the attention of the government the fact that some of the provisions of the tax bill now before the House are going to create, in our opinion, real hardship for the Canadian people. As a result of the vote last week in this House, and in view of the tenor of the speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) on Friday last, my feelings for Parliament are at their lowest ebb since I became a member some 14 years ago. I was not proud of my part in those proceedings, and I think that history will, in the main, show that our actions last week, did a disfavour to the people of Canada.
In his speech, instead of trying to defend the government's stand on this bill the minister attempted, in what I consider to be a very derogatory manner, to ridicule the actions of opposition parties, and particularly of the party of which I am a member. I think this was grossly unfair of him. Indeed, he misrepresented the situation. The minister alluded to the fact that on only six occasions did the opposition members vote against government proposals- and this in face of clause after clause after clause being passed on division. As I say, the minister deliberately tried to mislead the people of Canada.
By using closure, the government has brought to a conclusion the committee stage of debate on this bill. The government has vigorously sought to portray to the Canadian people that there was a deliberate plan on the part of all opposition parties to oppose passage of this measure. I think that the record should show, and should show quite clearly, that there are very few individuals in Canada who, despite their expert knowledge, could read comprehensibly the bill before the House in the total amount of time that the bill has been debated in this chamber.


Mr. Benson:: Fifty days.


Harold Warren Danforth: The minister says we have debated the bill for 50 days, but he does not say on how many of those days we debated it for only two hours or even less. For the minister to suggest that this was the actual amount of time devoted to a measure of this magnitude is a misrepresentation, and he has been grossly unfair to the people he seeks to represent.
December 13, 1971

Income Tax Act


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Tell us about the six and eight hour days.


Harold Warren Danforth: We on this side, in order to fulfil our obligations, have tried to gain some understanding of the measure before us. Many of us have sought outside advice. We have talked to chartered accountants and have attended seminars held by lawyers whose business it is to deal with tax measures. Never in one single instance have these people taken the attitude that they understand fully the implications of this bill. We have been debating a measure some 707 pages in length. Is it not rather sad, Mr. Speaker, that owing to the action of this government which forced us to vote on the measure, over 400 pages of the bill were not even dealt with in the committee stage? I think the situation is preposterous and is not what the people of this country expect by way of government action.
In the opinion of most Canadians, tax reform should be designed to distribute the tax burden more equitably among all citizens in order not to create any specific hardship. In this way, everyone would pay his fair share, and perhaps the tax base might even be lowered rather than raised. Even a cursory reading of the bill indicates that it does not comply in any way with the common conception of tax reform. The bill is designed to extract more taxes, not less, from the people of Canada. The very nature of the bill, with all its rules and regulations, will complicate the tax system of this country even more. Even the tax consultants will throw up their hands at the thought of this new tax measure. The government has forced it through Parliament, and "forced" is the only word I can use. In addition to this, it has had to bring in some amendments of its own, an indication that the government itself finds the bill far from complete. This is why Parliament has fallen to such a disgusting low.
All segments of the economy have begged the government to slow down the processing of the bill through this House. The provinces have asked for it, the business community has asked for it, chartered accountants and lawyers have asked for it, international corporations have asked for it but this government is determined to put it through to meet the deadline of January 1, 1972 set by the Minister of Finance. Mr. Speaker, I cannot comprehend why this government would feel that the personal reputation of one member of the government who made a forecast should be placed above the welfare of thousands of Canadian citizens. That just does not make any sense.


Edmund Boyd Osler: What you say is nonsense.


Harold Warren Danforth: In his speech on third reading, the minister stated that there would be further amendments after this bill goes through. He carefully enunciated amendments which would pe considered, but the banking committee of the other place has taken exception to those sections which are to be amended. Was this done in an attempt to help the people of Canada or was it a deliberate attempt to influence the further consideration of this bill? The government did not hesitate to impose closure in this House, so why would it hesitate to tinker with the other place? I feel this is exactly what is going on.

In stating that this bill would have to be proclaimed before the full effects of it can be known, the minister is making guinea pigs of the people of Canada as my leader pointed out. It is the trial and error method, but unfortunately the livelihood of many thousands of Canadians is involved. We cannot afford to tinker with the economic climate of Canada today. Too many businesses have been forced to close, too many farmers have left the land, too many big industries have decided not to expand and too many industries have left the country in disgust. Now, we have before us the bland assurance of this government that all will be well if the opposition will just desist and let them ram this measure through Parliament.


Edmund Boyd Osler: You don't know the difference between a ram and a turtle.


Harold Warren Danforth: The people of Canada do not understand this bill, Mr. Speaker, nor do all Members of Parliament but the people of Canada thoroughly understand the actions of this government. This has been proven by the tenor of debate in this House these last two or three days. It is an indication of the political climate of the country.
I have always loved the United States and its actions, Mr. Speaker. It is interesting to note that the members on my left, for whom I have the greatest respect, have now directed their attacks not at the government which they know, as a result of having their ear to the ground, will not be back, but at this party which they feel will be their chief antagonists when we go to the country.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: My God! This must be the cartoon hour!


Harold Warren Danforth: It is interesting that some of the back benchers and parliamentary secretaries opposite have taken an active part in this debate. I think they realize that this will be their last Parliament and their last chance to be on the record.


James Aloysius McGrath: You will go down in history as the only one who had to bring in closure to get your bill through.


Harold Warren Danforth: In spite of the propaganda, in spite of the assurances of this government, in spite of their lack of intimate knowledge of parliamentary procedure, the people of this country still think for themselves. When you travel among the people of this country, Mr. Speaker, you learn that they are not fooled by the blandness of this government when it says that a million or so people will be taken off the tax rolls. They know that as long as this bill is in effect in its entirety they will be back on the rolls. They know that inflation will eat the few crumbs this government is giving as tax deductions. The little man in the grocery store, in the service station, the shoe clerk, and the fellow in the factory realize that the government have made changes in this bill and they realize why this was done. They know that they cannot win tax cuts for themselves as they speak only with one voice, but they know also that when the credit unions and co-operatives brought many voices together and indicated that they represented a large number of voters, the government listened and made changes. This is power politics, Mr. Speaker.
December 13, 1971


An hon. Member:: That doesn't sound like dictatorship.


Harold Warren Danforth: This does not help the little fellow, the man that tax reform was supposed to help.
It is strange, Mr. Speaker, that when we voted on matters pertaining to agriculture, such as the recaptured depreciation, the elimination of the basic herd, the imposition of a capital gains tax, government members who represent farming communities voted for those changes. But they cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker. They must either go back to their constituents and admit tha: they do not understand this bill or that they voted antiagriculture on those measures. It is as simple as that. Their actions show where they stand. I think many of them voted for the government measure because they did not understand what it meant. If these provisions are implemented in their present form, Mr. Speaker, they will destroy many of the sound and substantial businesses in the country. The government is going to extract more money, but the feeling in the country today is that taxes are about as high as they dare go.
My leader was quite correct when he intimated that there will be further trouble if we get into the realm of capital gains and still have estate taxes in the provincial field. No small business or farm can survive this double taxation. The margin of profit in agriculture today is so small that it cannot bear this extra burden. It will be impossible to hand a farm from one generation to another under the provisions in the proposed tax bill. It just is not possible and there is no incentive if the economic climate of agriculture continues to decline under this government.
The bill becomes more and more complicated, Mr. Speaker. The minister said we debated it for 50 days but I would challenge that. Taking him at his word, however, that time, included the committee stage of this bill. The treasurer of the province of Ontario, as well as his staff, indicated that after an intensive study of four months, the provincial experts were unable to comprehend many of the complicated provisions contained in this bill. Yet, this government would lead us to believe that in this period of time members of this Parliament should thoroughly understand the ramifications of the bill and put it through. It is this to which the people object. The people expect reasoned action by any government, and they fail to see it in this situation. Surely, the people of Canada are entitled to the opportunity to earn a fair living without the government embarking on a deliberate policy or creating unemployment, the opportunity to amass some savings without the government devising ways and means of extracting the greater portion from them, the opportunity to engage in a business without government interference and regulation to a degree that the administrative work becomes burdensome, the opportunity to retire with enough money on which to live comfortably without government action making this entirely impossible, and the opportunity to provide something for their heirs without the government entirely destroying the results of their work.
I resent very much an attitude on the part of any member of this House which indicates that one generation
Income Tax Act
has no right to pass on wealth to the next generation. I think this is a retrograde step. I think this is one of the greatest incentives people engaged in work have. They should have the opportunity to establish a plateau on which their children can start out far beyond that on which their parents, because of circumstances, were forced to start. This is the greatest incentive there is, but even this seems to be removed under this new tax bill. One has only to read this bill to believe the government has absolutely no feeling for the common people.
It is interesting to note that members in this House stood up and said that the opposition party was opposed to this bill and therefore was opposed to relief for the low-income people, was opposed to the fact that older citizens would get a little break, that some categories would have a little rebate on their taxes and that some of the workers would have a little allowance for their tools and travelling expenses. They told us that if we voted against this bill this was the position we would be taking. This is the program followed by members of this government. They always try to wrap up a few goodies in any measure which they feel should be foisted on the people of Canada. This method is as old as the hills. Many grandmothers used castor oil in sugar to cleanse the systems of their children and grandchildren, but the castor oil in this bill is designed to cleanse the ills contained in it. We can come to only one conclusion, and that is that this bill was the product of a government which wanted to close all possible loopholes that might be utilized by Canadians to survive in the economic climate of Canada.
I pointed out once before, and do so again in supporting the amendment of my colleague, that farming as a business cannot be classified in the same way as other businesses in this country. I am not speaking of the capital gains tax. I am speaking about the basic herd, and the tax paid by farmers themselves, because under the present economic climate farmers cannot pass on any additional costs. Any increased taxation of farmers means even less net profit from the farm operation. If a company selling trucks, tractors or anything a farmer buys, suffers an increase in tax, the company adds the additional cost to the product it sells. If one farm commodity in Canada should have an additional cost added to it, this government would open the door to foreign imports so that the cost of living would not increase, thus adversely affecting their monthly reports.
So, I point out that I would have no hesitation at all in supporting the amendment my colleague has moved in a last desperate attempt to save the farmers of our nation. The government will not benefit by the action it is taking in respect of the farmers. The amount of tax it will collect through this action, which will put the farmers and their sons and daughters off the land, is a small pittance compared to the amount of money it now spends to keep them on the farm. I fail to see, therefore, why the government is taking this action. Does the government not care for the individual farmer? Does it want to shift the money to the other side? The government has spent $100 million in the west to support the farmers. It spent perhaps $200 million in Canada on agricultural subsidy programs, and with the grants and other aids to agriculture it probably has spent perhaps an extra billion dollars. Yet the government is going to put the farmers off the land because of the tax

December 13, 1971
Income Tax Act
measure, and the amount it will collect will be a pittance compared to the other sums.
Is it the intention of the government to get rid of the farmers and the small businessmen? This bill is designed to broaden the tax base. It certainly does not bring about more equity because it is designed to extract more per individual and not less. The implementation of the bill unfortunately will prove this. So far as I am concerned, my feelings for Parliament have reached a new low because we have a so-called reform bill brought in by this government which I submit is a humiliation to the people because many of its clauses were never discussed or debated and yet were put through because a certain cabinet minister decided that on January 1, 1972, this measure should be proclaimed. In addition, I resent very much the fact that the Minister of Finance stood in his place and ridiculed my leader for his attempt to divide this bill. He said this was impractical, impossible and not plausible. We did not suggest this without a great deal of thought. We consulted the foremost tax and legal people in this country. Yet this minister, who has never yet made one accurate economic forecast, in order to leave Parliament with one accurate forecast insisted on closure to fulfil his forecast that this bill would be passed by January 1, 1972. I think this is ridiculous.


PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mrs. McCleave)-Canadian foreign aid program- shipment of goods through Canadian brokers; the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis)-External Affairs-fisheries treaty with Norway-request for opportunity to discuss terms; the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath)-Regional Economic Expansion-suggested resignation of minister.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Benson for the third reading of Bill C-259, to amend the Income Tax act and to make certain provisions and alterations in the statute law related to or consequential upon the amendments to that act, and the amendment of Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West) (p. 10363) and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Burton (p. 10370).
Alfred Pullen Gleave: I should like to again bring a few things to the attention of the government. One wonders how effective it will be since we are operating under a time allocation motion. It is rather like playing the game of hide and seek, ready or not we will be caught. This is the sort of game the government is playing. The time has been called, the decisions have been made.

Some of the questions that were raised in committee, particularly those which applied to the farm sector, have not been answered. I asked some questions with regard to how the valuation of land would be established, and back came the answer: fair market value. What is it? The fact of the matter is that they do not know. Not too long ago the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) brought forward an adjustment program under which he said that land would be transferred at 90 per cent of the fair market value. The minister is shaking his head, yet this is what is said in the document. Did he not read it?


Harold Warren Danforth: He has not read it.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: What you are saying is not correct.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I do not know how one arrives at 90 per cent of the market value because it drops when you assess it.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I will be happy to explain that, Mr. Speaker.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Yes, the minister will be explaining it but not in the House; it will be to the country.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is what I was doing last week.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Stratford Burton: That is whistling in the dark.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I think it was my colleague, the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) who pointed out that in many cases when the government is attempting to establish the actual market value of the land, at least in western Canada with which I am familiar, they will be working on marginal value. They will not be working on full value but on the value of odd quarter sections. I do not expect that the government will accept what I say. I have here in my hand the report of a chartered accountant of reputable standing in Saskatoon. Here is what he says with regard to this matter:
farm land-fair market value may be difficult to establish at this time because of the relatively few sales of farm property in most localities in the past two or three years.
He is pointing out the difficulty that might occur when you start establishing the market value of a farm property. So, according to the government, market value is all they are prepared to use. They are not prepared to use the assessment of the actual productive value of that asset which they were asked to include, to they will proceed with this one method which has been described to them as quite unreliable, and which may very well work an injustice on the farmers themselves when assessing capital gain. Nonetheless, the government is prepared to proceed, and has refused to accept the opinions of those in the House who make their living off farms and who have some personal knowledge of this. I expect also that they will refuse to accept what I have quoted to them from a letter from an accountant who has spent a great deal of his time filing returns and working on matters related to farms. Here is his advice to farmers:
If you have knowledge of any farm land in your area which has been sold the last year or two, and which is comparable to your land in quality, make a note of the legal description of the property, and the parties involved in the transaction.
December 13, 1971

Income Tax Act
In other words, he is saying to the farmers: if you want to protect yourselves against the very real possibility of injury as a result of this legislation, go out and find any property that is transferred in your area, make a note of it, keep a record, try to find out at what value it was transferred, and have that in your pocket at some future time when the authorities come to you and say "you have made this much as a capital gain". This is the advice that comes from this accountant. Let us follow on. Here is what he said about farm equipment:
I would suggest that you appoint an equipment dealer, well versed in valuing machinery to appraise your equipment and give you a certified list of the equipment and fair market value of each machine on valuation day.
This is list should be kept safety and I would like to make a copy of it for retention in my files.
The dealer could certify the list as follows: "I have examined on this date the equipment listed below, and in_my opinion, based on my experience as a dealer in such equipment, the fair market value at this date is as follows:
This will involve considerable work for the dealer and I expect that he will charge an appraisal fee.
This is the kind of advice that people who are experienced and knowledgeable in income tax law are giving to their clients and yet, on the other hand, the government ignores it altogether.
Let us follow on. He said:
livestock ... a farmer who has a basic herd, or who intends to make application for one, should document market value of the basic herd class of animals on valuation day .. . animals which have a special value and these are included in a basic herd, you should consider obtaining an appraisal by an independent livestock broker or dealer.
Again this is advice to farmers regarding the handling of livestock. Then, he refers to shares in your farming company, and he describes gift and estate taxes. He says the federal government has indicated that it will vacate the estate and gift tax field on December 31, 1971. He goes on to say:
There are many uncertainties in this area and I hesitate to comment at this time.
This is what we are being asked to accept without question and, if we vote in favour of this bill, to defend our position in the country. If we vote against it, then, as the previous speaker said, there is a little sugar coated pill in the exemptions which, of course, the government members will be quick to charge we are denying the people in the country. Surely, it is the responsibility of the government, if they wish to levy a capital gains tax, to see that that capital gains tax is levied in such a way that it does not do injury to those who have to pay the tax, and that it does not cause undue expense to those who have to establish their financial position in respect of the tax. My chief complaint at this point is that those responsible for drawing up the act have not concerned themselves with the fact that it inflicts hardship on those who have to pay the tax. Reliable accountants assure me that we will find ourselves arguing with officials in the income tax department who themselves will not be sure of the limits within which they are operating. Mr. Speaker, if they are not sure of those limits, then how about the ordinary farmer or businessman trying to survive in the tax jungle that this bill will create?
I am satisfied that the bill will create a tax jungle. And, Mr. Speaker, the money collected in capital gains tax off farms will show the worthlessness of putting that provision in the bill. It will force a change in the method of buying, selling and transferring farm machinery. By some means or another the farmer and machinery agent will have to avoid fictitious capital gains, or unreal capital gains, that is to say, those which do not really put any money in your pocket. This capital gains tax provision will also make it more difficult for land to be transferred from generation to generation. The amendment seeks to deal with that problem, and for that reason deserves our consideration. It is a practical, workable approach to the way in which we make a living from the land.
I can find very little to recommend the government's action in this case, and even less to recommend in the haste with which the bill is being forced through the House or in the manner in which the government is clobbering those who seek to bring some reason into the bill.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment proposed by my colleague from Edmonton West. I believe it is a good and necessary amendment. Even though we are operating under the shadow of closure, I hope the government may be persuaded to let the amendment pass and allow the agricultural sections of the legislation to be referred back to committee for study in some depth.
I would like to talk mainly on the two sections that are under debate today, section 29 and section 39, which deal with the basic herd and with the capital gains tax as applied to farmers. But before doing so, I would like to voice my criticism of the way in which this tax legislation has been handled in the past few days. Since the government announced its intention to use closure, it is not down the throats of the opposition or of Parliament that it is ramming its new tax program. It is down the throats of the Canadian taxpayers, of the Canadian nation as a whole. It is down the throats of the great majority of taxpayers who cannot even begin to understand the implications of the new taxes, and many of whom are violently opposed to having these provisions enforced before their meaning is made clear.
It is a preposterous proceeding that is taking place in the House of Commons at the present time. What is the purpose of closure, either in the old or in the new form? It is to put an end to obstructive and repetitious debate which continues after the issues have been clarified for the country. The problem in this case is not obstruction. Instead, the House has been struggling with a bill of some 700 pages, involving hundreds of propositions, the intent of which is not merely to change taxes but to alter the whole tax system. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has complicated the debate by tossing in well over 100 amendments. How can the ordinary tax-paying citizen be expected to understand all of this when tax experts are complaining bitterly that many of the sections are incomprehensible to them?
One of the better suggestions made during this debate was that put forward by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
December 13, 1971
Income Tax Act
Stanfield) to divide the legislation into two parts. Under his proposal the new personal rates could have taken effect in January, and the more complicated package of changes involving tax on capital gains and new provisions affecting business could have been deferred until the early part of 1972 following closer scrutiny, by the House. This would not have forced the Minister of Finance to abandon his total objectives. He would simply have had to take two bites at the cherry instead of one. If he had then encountered opposition to the new rate proposals, closure would have been legitimate. Issues would have been clear. But the government would have none of that suggestion.
The country is to have the whole bill whether it likes it or not; whether people understand it or not, they are to have it by closure. The people most affected will not be the critics in Parliament but the ordinary tax-paying citizens. It is the Canadian taxpayer whose rights are being trampled on. The taxpayer has heard debate about general principles. He has heard re-assuring statements from ministers to the effect that "valuation won't hurt you even if you don't understand it." But his tax will not be decided by references to generalities or ministerial speeches. It will be determined by the letter of the law which Parliament was examining in committee. That examination has now been curtailed, and in fact this debate is being curtailed while the country is in a fog about the entire business of tax reform. Over and over again within the last few days, when sections dealing with agriculture were being examined by the committee, it was said that the people involved in drafting the legislation, and the people who will be involved in administering it, simply do not understand Canadian agriculture. I think that in good measure this is true.
We have seen a number of pieces of agricultural legislation come before this House within the past few months. They either tried to lock the farmer into a position which he was not willing to accept, or to provide him with a form of government control, and the establishment of quotas, all of which he was not ready to accept. To me this adds up to one basic conclusion, that the people drafting legislation have not taken the time to look into agricultural problems closely enough to determine what the industry really needs, and so bring in legislation for the benefit of that industry.
We went through the process of trying to introduce amendments to the stabilization bill, a bill which was finally thrown out of the House by the government. Those amendments were proposed by the official opposition and also by agricultural organizations all across Canada. For the most part they were good, sound amendments. Granted, Mr. Speaker, there were some that would have involved large expenditures of money, but there were others which could have been incorporated in the legislation for the good of agriculture. Yet they were not given a second thought by the government.
I believe that the farming community across Canada is sick and tired of the present Liberal government, sick and tired because it has not introduced anything in the way of meaningful agricultural legislation for over a period of a good many months. The agricultural industry is in serious trouble in Canada. This is something that should be stressed by rural members every time they get an oppor-

tunity. It is in serious trouble not only in the west but in all parts of Canada from the Maritimes to British Columbia.
An analysis of the trend of cash receipts from the sale of livestock and animal products over the period of the last 20 years indicates an average increase of just under $70 million a year, or about 3.5 per cent. This compares with the average rate of crops of just under $40 million, or slightly less than 3 per cent per year. On the other hand, operating expenses and depreciation charges have been increasing at a rate far greater than either of these two components. This average rate has been about $115 million per year, or just under 5 per cent. A continuation of this trend will lead to a gradual worsening of the farm income situation in Canada.
At the Outlook conference that was completed a few weeks ago in Ottawa it was noted that the repayment of $75 million of cash advances from earlier years is exerting a negative effect on the level of prairie cash receipts this year. In other words, the conference noted that although the movement of grain this year has been at a good level, the money for the most part has not been put back into the pockets of farmers. Increases in expenditures for farm production have eroded the impact of higher levels of prairie grain marketings on realized net incomes, as the Outlook conference went on to say. On the Prairies it is forecast that realized net income will be $621 million in 1971, compared with $494 million in 1970 and $505 million in 1969. The income projected for 1972 is to be only $500 million, which is the same level as in 1969, which was a very depressed year. Surely this cannot give much ground for optimism for farmers or others engaged in the agricultural business.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that unless we bring in agricultural policies which will reverse this trend drastically, unless we being in new agricultural policies, agriculture as we know it today may in a few years be non-existent. I say this only to demonstrate that the two items on which we are speaking today, those relating to the basic herd and to the capital gains tax, especially as that tax applies to the transfer of farms, are very critical areas to consider in the legislation and in the total picture of agriculture.
Speaking further on the capital gains tax, I believe that if a father in any way is hampered from passing on his farm to a son or daughter, the recipient of the farm will be restricted greatly in the matter of returns. Considering the low net return on moneys invested in agriculture today, the son or daughter may never actually pay for that farm. In a good many cases we are looking at farms that are capitalized to the extent of between $50,000, $100,000 or even more. The portion of that money which must be paid out in tax will seriously undermine the effective earning power of that farm. Also, there is always the estate tax to consider. This to me represents a clear form of double taxation.
It has long been recognized that the ratio of investment to return in agriculture, as I mentioned before, is extremely high. Not only is this a characteristic of agriculture, but the problem is further compounded by the high-risk factor associated with the uncertainties of climate and markets. Producers must contend with those risks. Indeed, the low returns of agriculture are evident from
December 13, 1971

the fact that banks are reluctant to extend long-term credit to farmers. Hence, there is need for the government-administered Farm Credit Corporation. Thus, it is obvious that in a high cost, moderate risk and low return industry the effects of capital gains would be more disruptive and burdensome than in the case of a low investment, higher return business. I am thinking, for example, of the sort of business that is carried on by members of some other professions.
We will be looking at a situation in which the business of farming will be treated in the same way as any other business, without recognition of the fact that there is something unique about farming and that we must work toward preserving that life style and and that way of life. Farmers, owing to the very nature of farming, are unable to accumulate the resources needed to pay capital gains tax. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that measures such as those we are considering make little sense at this particular time in Canada's history. To the extent that it is desirable to encourage and retain family farms for social as well as economic reasons, appropriate tax provisions should be made.
The measure of the government's failure to appreciate fully the sociological implications of the effects of the proposed legislation is shown by the fact that the pride and independence of the family farm and small family business have been completely ignored. The farmer's desire to protect his family farm has been ignored completely. In this regard the proposed legislation is better suited to the impersonal world of the giant corporation and multinational which is owned impersonally by many than to the values implicit in the family farm operation.
The Senate committee on banking and commerce, in its preliminary report on proposed tax reform legislation expressed concern about the pressures that have increasingly led to a profound change in the nature and use of farmland. The committee recommended:
-that consideration be given to extending the roll-over provisions to permit land together with any other capital property which is used by an individual in a farming activity to be transferred, either during lifetime or on death, to lineal ascendants or descendants without being subject to capital gains treatment under the deemed realization provisions. This exemption should only be available in those circumstances where the transferee or transferees continue to carry on the farming activities.
I believe that under this tax legislation we should not tax one segment of the economy at levels which it cannot meet. The fact that farmers have been able to stay in business is proof of their ingenuity. I suggest that we should apply here some of that ingenuity shown by the farming community and devise a tax structure that will enable both the Canadian public and the farmers to get a fair return from the agricultural industry. At the same time we must maintain the well-being of the rural economy and the level of food production which the nation requires. Maintaining the rural economy at a satisfactory level is an important consideration.
Just a week or so ago I returned from a trip to the United States. I heard agricultural problems and questions discussed at some length. The Americans, basically, are facing the same kind of problem that we are experiencing. There, farmers are leaving the land, large corporations are moving in to take their place and the entire agricultural industry from the standpoint of the
Income Tax Act
farmer is just not attractive enough to bring young people into it. I believe that we in Canada must try to tackle the problem. One of the first ways of doing that would be through a fair taxation system which would apply especially to those involved in agriculture.
If I may speak about the basic herd concept, Mr. Speaker, I believe that if the provisions relating to the basic herd are passed as proposed, every farmer engaged in a cow-calf operation in Canada will be adversely affected. So far as I can judge, under the proposed legislation the basic herd concept is being phased out for no valid reason. The Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce in its report published on November 4, 1971, said:
Your committee is not aware of any reason for not continuing to recognize a permanent herd for what it is, namely, a capital asset.
It continued:
Your committee recommends that provision be made in the proposed legislation for the continued recognition of a farmer's permanent herd as a 'basic herd' and, therefore, as a capital asset.
The House of Commons committee report on the white paper proposals said that since taxation was recommended with regard to the basic capital asset it was necessary to retain the basic herd concept. Under the transitional rules, basic herds which have already been established will continue to be treated as capital assets to the extent that those accrued at the commencement of the new system will not be subject to tax. There can therefore be little point in treating gains occurring thereafter in the same manner as profits on the sale of inventory or stock in trade.
The farmer wishing to acquire a herd or major addition to an existing herd takes money out of his capital. This is only natural. To go on an accrual basis with annual evaluation of the herd is often impractical, and if the farmer is on a cash basis for accounting he will experience a number of years of losses which will not be fully compensated by the averaging provisions. The failure of the government to treat this unique capital asset of the farmer's animals as a form of capital, subject to the same rules as taxation capital can, therefore, be regarded as wholly discriminatory.
I believe the farmer should be permitted to add to his basic herd by putting income into the cost of animals that he has. A young farmer should be permitted to establish a basic herd and to have that expense regarded as his capital investment. This will be a definite advantage to any young farmer interested in raising a cow-calf herd in which he will make the greatest portion of his living. If the present tax proposal is unmodified, the farmer will realize the proceeds of sales as income immediately on disposal of his herd. Farmers who wish to build their herd year by year, reporting the cost of the transitions as income as they do now, will not under the proposed changes be able to enlarge their capital base in animals. It does not take a genius to realize what could happen to the cattle industry if this legislation were adopted.
As I have mentioned before, Mr. Speaker, there is a strong social case to be made for the government's not creating difficulties for families who wish to continue farming. It will be extremely disruptive to a farm business

December 13, 1971
Income Tax Act
if capital gains must be realized by the family and withdrawn from the farm. A young man just starting up in farming could very well have to sell a portion of the farm he has acquired in order to pay capital gains tax. No tax reform legislation should have the effect of locking a farmer or any other person into a business or a way of life simply because he cannot afford to relinquish that business. Farmers can incorporate, but the taxation system should not force them into incorporation.
The concepts that are embedded in the tax legislation will to a great extend jeopardize the present form of our family farms. The application of a capital gains tax must not be permitted to lead to loss of ownership of family farm operations, nor must the capital gains provisions be permitted to introduce unnecessary rigidity and lack of inflexibility in the capital reorganization of a farm business. To conclude, I urge that the government give serious consideration to the proposed amendments that we are debating. If as members we find our time in the House of Commons is to be spent in a meaningful way, the tax legislation as it pertains to farms must be given greater study.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to participate this afternoon, but the speeches ground out by the Conservative research people have run down. Maybe over the supper hour they will have an opportunity to prepare a few more. I was very impressed with the presentation of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) when opening the third reading debate on this bill. He firmly planted his feet on the ground and then, tweaking the opposition with the impish grin we have come to know so well, putting his tongue in cheek, he proceeded to tick off the opposition about the fact that they abstained when the committee report came up for a vote. Rather than dealing with the specifics of the bill, the opposition's financial critic defended the actions of the Conservative members of that committee. He talked about the poor members who had to catch airplanes and were not available for the vote. That is too bad, but their responsibility is to the committee and the House of Commons prior to going home to their constituents.
The result of the tongue-in-cheek comments of the Minister of Finance indicated the kind of overreaction we have come to expect from members of the official opposition. It scares me to think there is even a slight possibility that they will be in government. If they react in this way then, being the government party with the kind of criticism to which it is subjected they will not be able to stand the heat in the kitchen.
At this time it is appropriate to compliment the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mahoney).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I concede to the financial critic of the opposition that I do not understand every section of this bill. However, I have come to believe that the parliamentary secretary obviously does understand them. There was not a section of the bill with which he was unfamiliar or on which he did not give an answer. It may not have been the
[Mr. Murta.J
answer the NDP or the official opposition were looking for, but he certainly understood the section. In the cool and efficient manner that we came to know in the many weeks of debate he showed that he knew the bill inside out, backwards and forwards.
As a member who practised law before coming to this House, I do not think there is any more complicated legislation than tax legislation, be it income tax, succession duties or estate taxes. It has to be complicated. We find lawyers of the Canadian Bar Association and accountants complaining that the legislation is complicated. Theh know full well that when an individual is going to be taxed, it must come within the four corners of the tax bill. Unless it is covered in the tax bill, the individual citizen is not subject to that kind of taxation.
Based on the decisions made on the old tax bill, the department, government and committee told us this bill would plug some of the obvious loopholes. In that way it is complicated and lengthy. When the time comes to put the bill into operation there will be all kinds of assistance available to the taxpayer. I am not referring primarily to lawyers and chartered accountants, but the kind of assistance we have come to know and expect from the Department of National Revenue. There are brochures and pamphlets to explain what seems to be a complicated piece of legislation. It is very easy to understand when put into such a document or form, but extremely difficult to put down in a piece of legislation.
Reference has been made to the fact that we have imposed a time allocation. The opposition likes to use words like "guillotine" and "closure". I do not think that anyone can win that semantic argument. It does not matter. The time comes when government must take its responsibility. I am proud this government took its responsibility. I support the action taken by the government. There comes a time when debate must end. We must make a decision. The government that introduces the bill must stand or fall by the legislation that it brings forward. It is not up to the opposition to impose their own form of filibuster or closure by debating ad nauseam sections that they do not like or feel should be changed.
There comes a time when the government must decide whether to make amendments, and it certainly showed its flexibility in this area, or to stand by the section, pass it and accept responsibility therefor. Nothing is to be gained from debate that goes on interminably with no decision being reached. I support the government and its time allocation. I think that rules 75A, 75B and 75C are good. These are the kind of rules that will save the House of Commons, not destroy it.
A cry has gone up from opposition members that there is no tax reform in this bill. Yet we have provided for a capital gains tax; we have provided that in addition to the increased exemptions which are to be allowed, people aged 65 and over will benefit by a further $650 exemption. He must also recognize the assistance given to working mothers who may now receive deductions in respect to child care expenses to the extent of $500 a year, or a maximum of $2,000 a year for a family. Acknowledgement is made, at last, of the fact that the workingman needs the tools of his trade. I agree that $150 is not
December 13, 1971

enough, but it is $150 more than has been allowed by any government previously in office.
We have heard a good deal said about the estate tax. There is no estate tax. I think that arguments in this area should now be addressed to provincial legislatures because the tax has been abandoned by the federal government. I welcome the amendments which have been made. I do not object to them. I see a desirable flexibility in this kind of approach. Indeed, I hope the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) is correct in his prediction that many more amendments will be brought down in the new year. I hope the government will continue to react to situations in which changes are required, especially when it appears that inequity has arisen.
The government has proven the flexibility of its approach by the changes which were made after the white paper was introduced, the changes which it brought about as a result of representations from individual taxpayers, and the amendments introduced following representations in this House. I have in mind primarily in that respect the new provisions regarding credit unions. I think the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Whelan) had a great deal to do with this. He certainly put forward a good argument. The ears of the government were open and I give the Minister of Finance credit for listening to a good case on behalf of the credit unions and co-operatives.
I do not think the Canadian people are very impressed by the scare tactics adopted by the opposition, by predictions that small farmers will be forced to leave the land and that businessmen will be unable to operate. I believe that when the time comes for them to submit their tax returns and they see the refunds they will get, they will discount the scare tactics employed by spokesmen for the opposition parties.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have news for you.


An hon. Member:: Bad news. It usually is.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I am aware of the opinion held by opposition parties. I have considered the amendment in the name of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and I think it is a great step backward rather than forward. The reforms put forward in this legislation will make the tax system more equitable than it ever has been. The bill has been debated ad nauseam. Its contents have been before us since 1962. Surely this is not the time to talk about splitting the bill, taking a giant step backward, as the hon. member for Edmonton West would have us do. let us, rather, as my hon. friend the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) said, get on with the job.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary two questions. The first relates to the basic herd provision. As I understand this legislation, when a farmer disposes of his herd the only recourse open to him under averaging, assuming he is not using the accrued income system or has not previously' owned a basic herd, would be the general average under the five-year averaging provision, if the legislation were in effect now, for example, and a farmer's last averaging block was 1966-1970 and he were to dispose of his herd in 1971, this year, he would be obliged to pay the full income tax in this year, assuming
Income Tax Act
he did not own a basic herd previously or was not on an accrual basis. He would have to pay full tax as though he has earned $30,000 in the one year. I believe there would be no forward averaging provision open to him. I leave that question with the parliamentary secretary.
My second question is: In buying forward-averaging annuities, as farmers and others will be able to do, as capital gains it is mentioned you can buy them through registered provincial companies. However, there is no assurance that these retirement or forward-averaging annuities would not be discounted by the companies dealing in them. There is no provision for this, to my knowledge. I raise this question on the assumption that there may be so much money available to annuity companies that they would not be able to take it up. As a matter of interest, I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary what these forward-averaging annuity companies may invest in. It seems to me they are largely involved in buying government bonds, so in effect this is a system whereby the government will have the use of their money until such time as it is recovered in taxation from the net income of the recipient. There is nothing in this bill which helps the farming community.
May I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned for dinner I was speaking of the effect this tax bill will have on the farming industry. I see nothing in the bill but provisions to make agriculture more difficult to finance and more difficult for farmers to carry on farming. I base this statement on the fact that practically none of the provisions of Bill C-259 materially improves the income of farmers.
The only farmers who might derive some help from the bill are the low income farmers, since the new income tax exemptions will be more generous than they were. However, since the government is intending to phase out the small, marginal farmers I cannot see how these so-called goodies in the form of increased exemptions will be of particular value to them.
There are three or four sections of the bill that bear upon the agricultural industry. One of them is the introduction of the capital gains tax on farmlands. Another is the phasing out of straight line depreciation on farm machinery. A third is the basic herd concept, which at the moment applies only to cattle but could embrace other livestock such as pigs, animals used for fur farming, and other branches of the industry requiring the build-up of a substantial number of animals over a period of years. From what has been said in this House, it does not require great thought to come to the conclusion that the agricultural industry is in a serious position. It is in a state of great flux and nothing this tax bill does assists the situation.
In its release dated November 30, 1970, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture revealed some figures on farm

December 13, 1971
Income Tax Act
income published for the annual agricultural outlook conference by the Canadian government. These figures show that in 1959, $610 million, or just over 10 per cent of the $5.4 billion total food bill, was paid to Canadian farmers. In the year 1971 the amount was $440 million, showing a decrease of 6 per cent in a food bill of $7 billion. In other words, Canadian farmers received two-thirds the amount they received 12 years ago. In terms of constant value dollars, this represents about half the amount.
This fantastic situation has been created-by the steady improvement in farm productivity over the years, which means fewer and fewer farmers producing more and more goods. In addition, there has been a chronically low level of returns in agriculture, and 1971 was an especially bad year for farmers. While the number of farmers has decreased, the capital investment made by farmers has risen. This is why I think the provisions of this bill are important.
I cannot help but feel that Bill C-259 is going to increase the exodus from the land of small farmers. I am not one of those who contend that the small farmer is necessary to the economy. If a farmer cannot make a reasonable living from the land, then it might be better for him to become involved in some other occupation that provides him with a better living. I travelled around my riding recently and found many farmers with considerable capitalization voicing the opinion that people on welfare were as well off as they were. At first glance one wondered how this could be, but a study of their financial situation revealed that although these farmers might have invested a lot of money in livestock, machinery and so on, they have very little consumer or spending money of their own. I think it is important to recognize this fact.
Another sector of agriculture that is depressed as far as level of income is concerned is the grain producer. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) suggested that we had exported a great quantity of grain in the last crop year. However, he neglected to mention that the grain was sold at record low prices. When the farmer receives 60 cents a bushel for barley, having received 75 cents for it in the late thirties, it is easy to see that in this day of high prices and high cost of farming the grain producers cannot be said to have things rosy.
The phasing out of straight line machinery depreciation will not be of benefit to the farmers and will increase their cost of capitalization. Thus, our grain producers will become less efficient than they have been in the past. We have to compete with United States farmers, and the United States has just introduced the DISC proposal designed to assist their producers. While it may not be directly applicable to agriculture, the United States is going all out to help U.S. producers. Since we compete with U.S. farmers, I suggest the phasing out of straight line depreciation on farm machinery is just one more measure that means farmers will be less efficient than they were. Being efficient is the only way they can stay alive economically. The straight line depreciation on machinery allowed the farmer to use good machinery. This was reflected in production and helped to make Canadian grain competitive in world markets.
[Mr. Ritchie.1
The other place has indicated that they do not favour the phasing out of the basic herd concept. If we consider the case of a livestock producer who has built up a herd over 20 years or so, who has not been on the accrual basis or had a previous basic herd, we find that if he should dispose of the herd he will be liable for income tax on the sale as though it had all been earned in one year. If he sold his herd for $50,000 he would be liable for about $20,000 tax in that year. If he could not take advantage of averaging then he would have to sell the herd in five year lots in order to take advantage of personal income tax.
The government should consider this whole question because it applies to fur farmers, swine herds or any herd that takes a while to build. Some sort of averaging should be available to these farmers. Under the present provisions many people who sell the whole herd in one year will be assessed for income tax in that year. It may be a good thing for the farmer to sell off the herd over a period of five years or longer in order to gain a tax advantage. If a herd is sold for $100,000, the income tax for that year would be nearly $50,000, whereas if it is sold over five years the income tax would amount to about $20,000. The government has been deficient in this area and I think they should bring in regulations to ease this situation.
The transfer of land from one generation to another will be made very difficult by imposition of the deemed realization at death and the capital gains tax. The treasurer of Ontario, Hon. W. D'Arcy McKeough, in his submissions to the meeting of the Ministers of Finance on November 1 and 2 said:
Following the significant strengthening of federal estate and gift taxes in 1968, it became apparent, to Ontario at least, that imposition of capital gains tax on top of existing death taxes would amount to confiscatory taxation of wealth.
This was because the capital gains tax would not mature for some time and as it and death taxes came together it would be very severe. He continued:
We were pleased that Bill C-259 recognized the interdependence of these two forms of taxing capital and the need to reduce death taxes upon introduction of a capital gains tax. However, the complete reversal by the federal government from a severe gift and estate tax regime in 1968 to total withdrawal in 1972 seems unreasonable.
The problem of a capital gains tax on farmers is an especially severe one. The farmer, as any small businessman or person holding property locked into capital gain, will find the payment of that tax a severe strain. An hon. member from the government side mentioned before the supper hour that there will be no estate tax. But, Mr. Speaker, tonight the Ontario government announced an estate tax and at the weekend the Premier of Manitoba said that they were considering it.
Last year, Manitoba's share of the estate tax was $3 million. If this tax is to be collected it will have to be substantial in order to be worth the bother. Unless the provinces and the federal government dovetail their arrangements on these taxes we will find ourselves in an almost impossible situation. The imposition of a capital gains tax as well as a provincial estate tax will make the transfer of land from one generation to another terribly complicated.
December 13, 1971

Mr. Speaker, I reiterate that I do not see any way in which this legislation will help the agricultural community to carry on. I am afraid it will encourage people to leave the land. Bill C-259 could be responsible for speeding the exodus.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I was going to make some comments to support the amendment of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), but I am sure the eloquent words we have just heard from the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) have impressed all members of the House except, of course, my friends opposite who are beyond all reason in regard to this bill.


Murray Arndell McBride: Try some reason on us.


Gerald William Baldwin: I see we are going to hear from our noisy friends opposite.


Mr. Paproski:: There is the basic herd right there, Murray McBride. He has milked his last cow in Lanark.


Gerald William Baldwin: The hon. gentleman really should not be here. Today is only December 13; he is 18 days too early. The mechanical noisemakers do not arrive until December 31. To get down to facts, Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak about the subamendment offered by my friends in the New Democratic Party. We are going to support it, but we have some reservations. As usual, hon. gentlemen to my left who are long on zeal and short on logic, did not think it through. There are dangers inherent in this subamendment. For example, as I construe the subamendment, it will rule out several cases which the amendment moved by my hon. friend from Edmonton West would cover, for example, a farmer with a quarter or half section of land.
Today I had a letter from a farmer in my area who writes that because of inclement weather conditions in the last three or four years he has had a very small crop, with practically no net return and a very small gross return. The only way he is able to maintain his family is by driving a school bus. As I read the amendment offered by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton), it would not cover this man. But he would be caught by the amendment in the form moved by the hon. member for Edmonton West. Because of the subamendment of the New Democratic Party, he might well be pushed out of the picture.
The same thing might apply to a widow engaged in school teaching who lives on a farm which she has inherited from her husband. She might not get, under the NDP subamendment, the benefit my hon. friend from Edmonton West envisages in his amendment. So while we support the subamendment, we do so with reservations. Unlike the government, we believe in doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Anybody who would vote for this bill without an amendment would not deserve to sit in this House of Commons.
Having made those comments on where we stand on the amendment, I have a few remarks to make. I hope the House will be permitted to divide on this question. I see the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) is here. We know he has been a busy little minister in the Senate today, doing
Income Tax Act
his utmost to persuade them. I shall not talk about the means he exercised. It is a black day in this country when the Minister of Finance goes to the other place and pursues the line he took here last Friday and attempts to persuade the other place to put this bill through in a limited time. The minister pretends innocence. He knows very well what he said here last Friday and he knows very well why he went to the other place in an attempt to persuade them in what one hon. senator said was Christmas closure.


Some hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Gerald William Baldwin: I am ashamed of the conduct of the Minister of Finance; I really am. However, I shall not pursue this. It is beyond words, Mr. Speaker. Let us reflect on the circumstances under which this vote will be taken, I hope in a short time, and subsequent votes on this bill. We feel this debate should be continued for a reasonable period of time to permit the examination of those parts of the bill which have failed to secure the adequate discussion that we as representatives of the people should have before a bill of this nature is passed. We know why we are not getting it. Today in the House I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) a very simple and very innocent question.


An hon. Member:: It would be simple.


Gerald William Baldwin: I always ask a simple question of a simple man. I asked the Prime Minister whether the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) was enunciating government policy when he said in Saskatoon that the government must exercise additional power, or more control or more power over Parliament. I want to point out that at that time the minister was sitting in his place and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration is by no means reluctant to get up and speak if he thinks he has been misquoted. He sat in his place and never challenged my statement, so I think we may take it that in Saskatoon when addressing some 900 of the faithful he said that in his view the government must exercise more power and more authority over Parliament.


An hon. Member:: Right.


Gerald William Baldwin: We hear "Right" from over there. Obviously, this is what government backbenchers want. I point out to them and to the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Which-er), from whom I believe better things should come, that before long they will be sitting over here. It will not take long. At least the ragged remnants of them will be over here. They will be screaming at that time. When we stand up for the rights of Parliament we are standing up for all hon. members, not only ourselves but hon. members opposite as well. They do not have the sense to recognize that. However, getting back to the Prime Minister, as usual he distorted things and tried to pass the question off. He said: "Mr. Speaker, he was perhaps thinking of the motion that the leader of the House was talking to a moment ago."
That motion the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) was talking to was a motion for closure. Closure is never far from the mind of the Prime Minister or any hon. member opposite. They want to govern by

December 13, 1971
Income Tax Act
closure, by guillotine, by choking us off. I asked the Prime Minister a supplementary question: "Was he also speaking about exercising more control over Parliament, and did he have in mind the Senate as well?"
I am sorry the Minister of Finance has fled from his seat. The Prime Minister answered: "No, Mr. Speaker. I think he had in mind getting rid of some of the useless backbenchers in the opposition parties."
That is the view of the Prime Minister-get rid of the opposition parties and get rid of the backbenchers; they are nobodies. That is the way the government likes to govern, by eliminating the opposition. It is a shameful sight to see the Prime Minister of this country making comments of this kind about the House of Commons. To show that this is not just a flash in the pan, the Prime Minister was in Montreal over the weekend and made a speech there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I usually oppose the slaughter of seals, but when I hear all this howling opposite I am inclined to change my mind. What did the Prime Minister say? I shall not quote. I shall only repeat what an article said:
Trudeau said the opposition parties called his government arrogant when it tightened up parliamentary rules, but weak and incapable of governing when its bills were debated for weeks in the House of Commons.
The fact of the matter is that both these come together. When you find a government that is weak and incompetent, it is arrogant. It is like an incompetent person who becomes a bully in order to get his way in the world in which he lives. That is the situation of this government. The government has imposed closure. It has brought about by closure the implementation of rule 75c, because it is weak, because it is incompetent and because it cannot operate a parliamentary government in the way it should. That is why this government has exercised its arrogant and stupid action of imposing closure. The Prime Minister has his priorities reversed because the government has been arrogant.
This goes hand in hand with the statement of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in Saskatoon, the statement of the Prime Minister that he must be master of the House of Commons and that members of the opposition parties are nothings, the statements of the Prime Minister in Montreal and in this House of Commons, and what the government has done in respect of this bill in imposing closure each week for two successive weeks, as well as the action of the Minister of Finance in finagling his way into the Senate to get this bill through at an early date.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shame on him.


Gerald William Baldwin: The Minister of Finance knows that I am speaking the truth. What are the facts? When the guillotine fell last week there were more than 200 clauses and subclauses in this legislative monstrosity on which the question had not been put and which had not been discussed. That is the question which we had to face when for 3 i hours-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
(Mr. Baldwin.]


Gerald William Baldwin: -this House had to sit here, subjected to the discipline of the guillotine, to have questions put on more than 200 clauses and subclauses in this bill, which had not been discussed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Gerald William Baldwin: This is one of the darkest chapters in the parliamentary history of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. friends opposite are behaving in exactly the same way as their predecessors behaved in 1956.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I might take this opportunity to invite hon. members to allow the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) to continue his speech. If hon. members want to contest some of the things that are said, I am sure that the House has all the time and they may rise to speak later.


Gerald William Baldwin: I thank you for your protection, Mr. Speaker. I just want to follow on what my friend, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), said, that there will be a parallel to the pipeline debate, that next year the electors of this country will treat this government the way they treated the Liberal government in 1957. At the next election the brazen conduct of this government will not be disregarded.
This is a government which with utmost contempt and disregard for Parliament has fought for the passage of this measure, not understood and not considered, its implications far beyond the intelligence of the minister and his colleagues and certainly beyond the comprehension of the taxpayers of this country. Every taxpayer of this country will require at his side a tax expert in view of the intricacy of this bill. What did we ask? A simple request, an honest and realistic request, that this bill be divided, that part of the bill which we thought was reasonable on matters for which this party, other opposition parties as well as a few members of the government, have been pressing be passed and the rest of the bill not be implemented until a reasonable length of time had elapsed to permit there to be some comprehension of the bill.


Edgar John Benson: It simply means you never read it.


Gerald William Baldwin: The Minister of Finance said it was not administratively possible. I repeat what I said in the House last week, that any group of people comprising the minister and his advisers who had the deviousness to incorporate between the four corners of one bill the monstrosities which are envisaged in this bill should have no difficulty at all in making those administrative and legislative changes which would have permitted delay of those parts of the bill which we suggested should be delayed until some time next year. It was only an excuse.
December 13, 1971

What is involved is the prestige of this government. There is no question about it. They lost the bill dealing with the Auditor General; they lost Bill C-244, they lost Bill C-176 and they lost one or two other measures. There are on the order paper a number of legislative items which will expire when the session expires, and the government said that they dare not, cannot and must not allow this session to pass without this bill going through. That is the only reason the government put it through.


Edgar John Benson: It is the only reason for your action.


Gerald William Baldwin: No, Mr. Speaker. The minister said last Friday that there would be a large number of amendments, and I am sure he repeated that in the Senate today.
I have not had a chance to read what he told the Senate, but I would be inclined to believe that the minister said there would be a large number of amendments. I see the minister making notes. I would be glad if he would stand up and say that he does not intend to bring in a large number of amendments next year. He knows that he will be doing so.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: He has no idea what he is going to do.


Gerald William Baldwin: A shocking admission of ineptitude! There has been a suggestion to the Senate that they should cease and desist from any challenge to this legislation and from making any proposals for change. That is what the minister is trying to persuade the Senate to do. The minister can shake his head until he is blue in the face but he, I and other members in the House know.
How dare the minister and the government act in this way at this time? It is a shocking and a shameful thing. So far as we are concerned, if we could have got other parties to go along with this we would have been quite prepared to put forward a time limit which would have allowed for reasonable debate and discussion of all particular areas which in our view needed further clarification and further delay-


An hon. Member:: How much time?


Gerald William Baldwin: -and to consider over 200 clauses and subclauses which have never been considered.


Edgar John Benson: It is your fault.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: There would not be enough time for the minister to understand the bill.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You would not understand anything after five years.


Gerald William Baldwin: To paraphrase Thoreau, after this bill is passed the taxpayers of this country will live lives of quiet desperation. I should like to end on the note that this bill, together with some of the other bills with which the government has threatened the country, shows what their point of view is. I suggest to this House and to the country that a society designed to present its members with adequate opportunity to achieve identity, stimulation and security will survive the trials of group selection.
What we must have is a provision which will enable the maximum development of all members of the society. A society which fails in this psychological test is not the kind of society we want, but it is the kind of society which the
Income Tax Act
government is offering the people of Canada. Mr. Speaker, we reject it and I suggest, through you, to the House and to the people of Canada that in the next election the people of Canada will also reject it.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. McBride) rising for the purpose of asking a question? The hon. member can ask a question if the hon. member who had the floor would allow it.


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes, Mr Speaker.


Murray Arndell McBride: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wonder, before the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) resumes his seat, if he would be kind enough to give a ball-park figure as to the amount of time he had in mind. I ask the question in all seriousness, assuming that he would be responsible when he said that if we had had more time to debate the bill we would have done a better job. How much time had the hon. member in mind, in terms of weeks or months?


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, my first retort is, why the devil didn't the hon. member ask this question before closure was imposed?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, we are now considering Bill C-259, the short title of which is: "An act to amend the Income Tax Act". Looking in all directions, we can see that our friends are very anxiously and impatiently waiting for the guillotine to fall.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in 1971, when there are signs of improvement in every area, it is regrettable and painful that a government supported by the force of the majority should feel compelled to resort to the guillotine.
Those who have promised Canadians to bring about the just society are so weak that they are forced to tell opposition members who seek to protect the people by all possible means, that they have only one defensive weapon which is to silence the opposition.
Mr. Speaker, I have keenly followed the question. Indeed, I have read numerous publications issued by workers and farmers, the Canadian Bar Association, accountants, industrialists, teachers, co-operatives, and manufacturing associations. Nowhere did I find a favourable comment or an appreciative remark for Bill C-259. All these publications have been clearly hostile to and have entirely disapproved Bill C-259.
Far from being an improvement Bill C-259 tends to confuse the average citizen. The taxpayer who until now could complete his income tax return all by himself will be unable to get past the first page of his return and our hon. friends opposite, the Liberals, are trying to convince the population that this is an improvement.
We of the Progressive Conservative party have always said that more generous personal exemptions should be granted by the government to small and middle class taxpayers.
The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Stanfield) who will soon be the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada started his fight with the introduction of the white paper. Our hon. friends opposite mocked him; they went to radio

December 13, 1971
Income Tax Act
and television stations and to newspapers and said, "Stanfield is preaching in the wilderness". By using all sorts of sketches attempts were made to try and persuade the population that the leader of the opposition did not know what he was talking about. A few months later, our hon. friends opposite with the minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) leading the way had to recognize that there was ground to lead the campaign in favour of the people of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, if we were right in our opposition to the white paper we are surely right in our opposition to Bill C-259 since this bill can bring nothing but malediction.
Once more, under the leadership of my hon. leader, we asked the government not to deprive ordinary citizens of the exemptions they are entitled to and, for that purpose, we urged that the bill be divided into two parts. But the Liberal members cannot possibly feel the nation's pulse- estranged from the people as they have been for a long time now-and do not want to listen to reason.
A few months ago, my hon. friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) maintained that one needed courage to create unemployment. The Liberals keep on creating distress among the people since they refuse to recognize their rights and privileges.
How can one believe that Bil C-259 reflects the people's desires when the Minister of Finance himself told the Canadian people that, whether they like it or not, the bill would become law on January 1, 1972? How can one believe that he was right when he himself introduced, after some time, about 100 amendments to the bill and later on amendments to those amendments, while saying that when this monstrosity becomes effective, it will still need improvements? How can we believe that the Minister of Finance and such back-benchers as the member for Bonaventure, who are doing their utmost to have this legislation passed, are well-disposed towards the population-


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of lustice):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine on a point of order.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe, who claims to know Quebec inside out, should also know hon. members' constituencies. The Bonaventure constituency should properly be called Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, what a point of order! I would like to ask immediately the member for Bonaventure and Gaspe what part of this monstrosity is going to improve the farmers' and the small industrialists' lot, which part of the bill he will support whole heartedly since he is blind and more devoted to his party than to his country? How is this bill bringing some relief to the small employee who will keep on being taxed? How will this bill bring any improvement to the Canadians? The minister and all the Liberals will keep on praising their leader-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see them applauding because only a few years ago they called him a stupid

ass. Are they going to keep on applauding? Mr. Speaker, when a majority government has to use a gag to prevent those who defend the people from speaking, the time has come to worry and to raise one's voice.


Gerald William Baldwin: Question.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not intend to become partisan on the issue that is before us.


Some hon. Members:: Oh. oh!


Norman Augustine Cafik: We are discussing Bill C-259. When the white paper on tax reform was proposed in this House on November 7, 1969, I decided that the issue of tax reform would probably be the most important single issue on which I would ever have to cast a ballot for or against as a Member of Parliament.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The hon. member is breaking my heart.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I decided to do something positive about this, namely, to set up a riding tax committee of a non-partisan nature to study this matter, so that I could make a decision, not based on partisan considerations but on what I felt was in the best national interests of the people of this country. This tax committee consisted of approximately 20 members, a number of whom were certainly from outside my party, some of whom were from outside my riding and two of whom had worked with the Carter commission when this subject was being studied.
We studied this white paper for almost one year. Following our studies as a committee, I took this problem, along with recommendations that we had tentatively arrived at, to the people of my riding. We called a series of meetings from one end of the riding to the other. My riding is not as big as some; it is roughly 100 miles long and embraces 17 municipalities. I had meetings convened in each area. Some meetings were attended by large groups; others, in the southern area of the riding were not so well attended. None the less, we presented to the people the proposals of the white paper as well as our committee position. As a consequence of the reaction to these proposals presented by the committee, we adjusted our position a little. We did so as a result of the input by the people of the riding who did not belong to the select committee.
On November 10, 1970, our committee met with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) as a group. We presented a report to him in which we made 21 recommendations for basic changes. Some of those recommendations parallelled those which had been made by the standing committee of the House of Commons, although other recommendations were totally different. For instance, our committee was totally opposed to the principle of integration whereas the parliamentary committee was not. We liked the principle in theory but we could see no possible way of implementing it in practice.


J. Michael Forrestall: How are you going to vote?


Norman Augustine Cafik: Of the 21 proposals we made, and I will not go into details at the moment, 15 were accepted by the government in whole or in part and six were rejected.
December 13, 1971


J. Michael Forrestall: How are you going to vote?


Norman Augustine Cafik: On June 30, when the new proposals were tabled in the House of Commons, our committee met again. We decided that we had to look at the whole thing again. We again convened a series of meetings in my riding at which we discussed these tax proposals. We came forward with a number of recommendations. It was understood at that time that the government would be proposing a series of amendments. We of the committee were concerned, as I was in my capacity as a Member of Parliament, about that particular proposition. I understood that the amendments would be tabled one at a time as the various clauses were being dealt with.
Our committee, myself included, made recommendations to the minister and persuaded him, as did many others, that this was an unwholesome thing to do, that it was unfair to Members of Parliament and that these amendments should be tabled at the earliest possible moment. I am happy to say that this was actually done in cases where it could be done.
The second thing that was decided was that in view of the complexity of this bill and the difficulty that many individuals and even experts would face in interpreting it, it was necessary-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You are stealing our lines.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Long before the hon. member thought of them, we had proposed them. These ideas came from the work of our own committee.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The hon. member is just repeating them.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I put forward a proposition that none of you guys put forward, and you want to talk about stealing lines!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Refer to us as hon. members, please.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I proposed, Mr. Speaker, that the government should commit itself to bringing forward interpretative regulations.


J. Michael Forrestall: What does that mean?


Norman Augustine Cafik: These were to be put forward within two years following passage of the act.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Interpretative regulations, as I understand the term in relation to this particular act, would simply interpret every section of the act. An interpretative regulation would accompany every section of the act and give examples as to how in law the section would apply.
An. hon. Member: But the bill is over 700 pages long.


Norman Augustine Cafik: There might be more than 700 pages involved. Anybody wanting to interpret this act could do so if he did not mind doing a little reading.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Why did the hon. member not say that to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson)?


Norman Augustine Cafik: I did.


Steve Eugene Paproski: And what did he say?
Income Tax Act


J. Michael Forrestall: "Go home," that's what he said.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: What did he say?


J. Michael Forrestall: Yes, tell us.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we could a little order. I will carry on and if at the end of my few remarks hon. members wish to ask questions, perhaps I will answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is trying to make a speech.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members to my left are making it difficult for the Chair to listen to the speech being made. In all justice and fairness I think the hon. member should be permitted to make his speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: In addition to proposing that set of interpretative regulations we felt, since it would take a long time to implement such a scheme, that a system of advance rulings ought to be set up immediately on passage of the act. These, we suggested, should have the force of law and give legal interpretations up until such time as the regulations themselves were tabled in the House.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: And what did the minister say to mat?


Norman Augustine Cafik: I am pleased about one thing. At least we have set up a system of advance rulings.


J. Michael Forrestall: Where?


Norman Augustine Cafik: I am still hopeful that the government will agree to establish interpretative regulations. Frankly, I wish that the government had agreed to this. I am still hopeful that they will be established.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Don't hold your breath.


Norman Augustine Cafik: That has been done in other countries. Since this tax act is so complicated and difficult to interpret, it seems to me that interpretative regulations are absolutely necessary.


An hon. Member:: You should be in the opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: I see the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) rising to ask a question. He may ask it if he has the permission of the hon. member who has the floor.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to entertain questions after I have finished. If the hon. member will make a note of his question, perhaps he can ask it then. In that committee-I am talking about the second stage of that committee's life, or phase two, so to speak- we spent a great deal of time talking about the possible date of implementation of this act.
We also discussed the advisability of splitting the bill. This is something that other hon. members have suggested. We wondered whether the government, by splitting the bill, ought to pass the goodies and forget the rest for the

December 13, 1971
Income Tax Act
time being. In any event, our committee, which certainly was not partisan, agreed that it was absolutely essential to pass this bill as quickly as possible in order to end much of the confusion created among the business community right across the country as a result of the participatory approach that had been adopted with the white paper. Our committee felt that the bill should not be split. We felt it was essential to get it through as quickly as possible in order to end the confusion that presently exists.
Another point I would like to mention is that although our committee never made any recommendations in this regard, I certainly made recommendations. This is in connection with the tax measures for co-operatives and credit unions. I know many other members did the same. I am delighted that the government has seen fit to put forward an amendment in which there is now a 15 per cent patronage dividend withholding tax on patronage dividends on $100 or more on individual items. Frankly, I think this meets the majority of the objections that have been put forward by co-operatives and credit unions. I was very concerned about their anxiety over this section, particularly because of my involvement in the credit union movement. I thank the government for the amendment they put forward.


J. Michael Forrestall: Where you here on second reading?


Norman Augustine Cafik: Someone asked where I was on second reading. I was certainly around here.


J. Michael Forrestall: We did not hear from you then.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I felt a little more confidence in what the government would do than perhaps some others. I think in this case-


J. Michael Forrestall: Oh!


Norman Augustine Cafik: In closing-


J. Michael Forrestall: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: -I want to talk about one point that has been made repeatedly. That is the charge that the government has invoked closure on this bill and this is a bad thing. The House leader of the official opposition used the term "closure" in the debate tonight. As a House leader, I am sure he knows the rules as well or better than most of us. He knows it is a time allocation, not closure.


J. Michael Forrestall: Shame.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Rule 75C is a time allocation. Frankly, I have been advocating the use of 75C for some time, not only on this bill but on some others. I am here to defend that.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Why delay it? Do it now.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Governments have a responsibility to govern.
I believe it is essential that we program the time of this House so that we get the maximum benefit possible for the people of Canada without excessive delays. I do not think that is unreasonable. I do not think rule 75C should be used to stifle debate but to do what it is designed to do, namely, limit debate without being excessive. In a democracy we have to assume our responsibility of coming to a
[Mr. Cafik.J
point where we can in fact make decisions. I have no objection to the use of rule 75C. I recommend that the precedent in this case be used in many cases in the future. I have been here three years. I have heard a lot of debate which I felt went on much longer than the public interest demanded in just plain discussion.


J. Michael Forrestall: What you are saying tonight-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


J. Michael Forrestall: -is not you speaking.


Mr. Speaker:: Can we have order. Hon. members should know that when one hon. member has the floor, he should be allowed to speak. There is no justification and no excuse-


J. Michael Forrestall: That is just so much-


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member will not allow the hon. member for Ontario to make a speech, he should let the Chair make comments and bring to the attention of hon. members that the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) has the floor.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Before I close, Mr. Speaker, I wish to comment on the interruptions. I am sure that those on my tax committee in my constituency who belong to the Conservative Party, and there are a number, would find it difficult to understand how we can treat this kind of problem in such a totally partisan way. I am not proud of that fact and I am sure they would not be proud of it either. I believe the people of Canada are pleased and fortunate that we are willing to take a decision, difficult as it may be, to force this matter to a vote so that Canadians can have the advantages which this tax proposal offers them, particularly those in the low income groups who need it most.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I rise only for the purpose of asking a question. I am very impressed with the hon. member's appreciation of the role of the opposition. After hearing from the champion of democracy I want to ask him one question. He continuously referred to his idea, or that of his committee, about bringing in interpretative regulations. As I understand it, he had some discussion with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). We are all anxious to hear the answer regarding this submission by the member and his committee. I am surprised he did not give us any indication of the minister's thinking in this regard, because the member thought it was such a great idea. I hope he can elaborate and help us to understand what occurred.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a very fair question and deserves an answer. When I spoke with the Minister of Finance about the need to set up interpretative regulations, we discussed the matter for some time. He indicated the government would be bringing forward these advance rulings and this might well serve the purpose I had in mind. Frankly, I did not entirely agree. We discussed the matter further. He indicated something to me which I already knew, that it was an extremely difficult task to bring down interpretative regulations for such a large act, certainly if it was simultaneously tabling it in the House.
December 13, 1971

Division
I am convinced that the matter is not entirely forgotten. I think it is worth while. I look forward to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray) perhaps bringing forward those regulations at a future date. If the hon. member thinks it is a good idea, I am sure with pressure from him, myself and other members, this might become a reality.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the subamendment. All those in favour of the subamendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the subamendment lost. The question is now on the amendment to the main motion. All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the House that we proceed to the vote without the ringing of the bells?
Aiken
Alexander
Alkenbrack
Asselin
Baldwin
Barnett
Bell
Benjamin
Bigg
Blackburn
Brewin
Burton
Carter
Coates
Crouse
Danforth
Dinsdale
Dionne
Fairweather
Flemming
Fortin
Gauthier
Gleave
Harding
Harkness
Homer
Howe
Knight
Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand) Lambert Bellechasse) Lambert
(Edmonton West) Latulippe Lundrigan
MacDonald (Egmont)
NAYS Messrs:
Legault
Lessard (LaSalle)
Lind
Loiselle
MacEachen
MacGuigan
Mackasey
McBride
McNulty
Mahoney
Marceau
Marchand
(Kamloops-Cariboo)
Morison
Munro
O'Connell
Olson
Pelletier
Penner
Pepin
Perrault
Portelance
Pringle
Prud'hommc
Reid
Richardson
Rochon
Roy (Timmins)
Roy (Laval)
Smith
(Northumberland-Miramichi)
Smith (Saint-Jean)
Stafford
Stewart
(Okanagan-Kootenay) St. Pierre Sulatycky Thomas
(Maisonneuve-
Rosemont)
Trudel
Turner (London East)
Wahn
Walker
Watson
Weatherhead
Whelan
Whicher
Whiting-92.
10426

Decern b er 13, 1971
Division


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes that are left this evening I shall at least be able to present the amendment to the motion for third reading which we would like the House to consider, and by hearing the amendment tonight hon. members will have an opportunity to think about it.
It is clear that this bill has occasioned debate in a good many areas. It has done so with respect to the things that are in it and the things that are not in it, with respect to its complexities and its incomprehensibility and also with respect to the manner in which it is being put to Parliament. In my view, sir, when the debate is all over, if there is one issue that will be of concern to the largest number of Canadians it is the fact that after 22 years, when the present government got around to doing something about the exemption levels in the Income Tax Act, all it could do was to raise those levels to $1,500 single and $2,850 married.
Considering the fact that it was in 1949 that the present levels of $1,000 single and $2,000 married were set, we feel, and I believe the people of Canada agree with us, that it is an insult for the government to raise the levels by only the amounts indicated in this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is also our view that this was an excellent time for the government to deal with the matter that is usually covered by adjusting the exemption levels by using the technique of a tax credit. When we were in committee of the whole dealing with clause 1 of the bill I presented an amendment which was accepted by the Chair and voted upon but which at that time was defeated by a vote of 64 to 42.

December 13,19 71

It is my hope that with the larger attendance that we get in the House, and with members having had an opportunity to think the matter over, the result might be different. It has been indicated from the Chair that to try to amend this bill to raise the exemption levels would be out of order, but it was also indicated to us when we were in committee of the whole that we could seek to amend it by reducing any rate of tax, provided we made such a reduction across the board. That is why I proposed in committee of the whole that the rate on the first $500 of taxable income be reduced from 17 per cent to 2 per cent and that a corresponding reduction of $75 be made in each of the brackets from the first one up to the top.
I propose to ask the House to vote for a motion that would instruct the committee of the whole to reconsider this proposition. Therefore, I should now like to move my amendment if Your Honour would permit me to do so. I would be happy to continue my remarks when we return to the bill tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should really wait until the end of his remarks before making his motion. He might want to indicate what his motion would be, but he might find himself in procedural difficulty. The hon. member might indicate his motion and resume his remarks tomorrow. The hon. member has another 30 seconds before adjournment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am quite happy to do it that way, Mr. Speaker. At the end of my remarks I shall move:
That Bill C-259 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole House for the purpose of reconsidering the proposed new section 117(1) as set out in clause 1 on pages 313 and 314, and in particular for the purpose of reconsidering the changing of the figure "17%" in line 33 on page 313 to "2%" and consequentially reducing the amount at the beginning of each of the paragraphs (b) to (m), both inclusive, on page 314, by $75.
Sir, I see it is ten o'clock.


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

Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago this House gave approval to a supplementary estimate with regard to the Canadian International Development Agency for the sum of $22 million, thus bringing up to $215 million the amount of money that this country would make available to that agency.
I think all Canadians can take satisfaction from the fact that over the past decade there has been a steady climb in the amount of money that we are making available for international aid. Some of the $215 million is comprised of economic assistance which includes the provision of commodities, equipment and food, and some of the CIDA 24725-311
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
program consists of international emergency relief. I am told on what I regard as very reliable authority that any commodity shipments under CIDA are arranged through New York brokers, and that in turn usually means that they go forth on foreign ships. I am enough of a Canadian patriot to imagine that somewhere in this world people who need Canadian assistance would prefer to see that assistance coming to them in a ship that sails under the Canadian flag. Hence my question at the end of November, and a further exchange on December 6, in which the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) replied:
The policy of permitting Canadian funds to be used for ocean shipping is relatively new and to date has only been applied to a few countries. However, in so far as gifts or grants are concerned, the policy is to pass all work possible to Canadian brokers or Canadian forwarders. Further, where the schedules, rates and availability of Canadian-owned shipping companies permit, contracts are awarded to such shipping companies.
It may come as a fearful shock and surprise to you, Mr. Speaker, situated as you are in the city of Cornwall and able to watch the traffic going by your door, so to speak, to learn that Canada has really only two foreign-going freighters at present under the Canadian flag. One is the Federal Hudson and the other is the Global Envoy. Another vessel which can possibly qualify is the Cabat-em, which is a clean oil tanker.
The Federal Hudson is now used by the Canadian National system as a car ferry. The Global Envoy is tied up for lack of work at Sorel, Quebec, although I understand it is one of the best equipped ships of its kind registered under the Canadian flag. The Cabatern, the clean oil tanker, is tied up in Toronto with nothing in sight, so that the Canadian foreign-going merchant marine, such as it is, is a somewhat small thing and a somewhat idle thing at the present time. Furthermore, my sources say that they know of no Canadian brokers handling these foreign aid shipments, they know of no Canadian ships carrying them and they would like the government to identify both the brokers and the
It may be noted that we have got out of the carrying business and that our merchant fleet, such as it was during the war, has now shrunk very considerably. So we are not a maritime-minded nation at all although we have one of the longest coastlines in the world. We are rapidly getting out of the manufacturing business and leaving that to other countries. But we are not hewers of wood and carriers of water. The people to whom I have talked about these CIDA shipments are asking exactly what have we become?
I hope that whoever replies will provide some identification of the brokers, some identification of the Canadian ships and the CIDA cargoes that are being carried to other countries. I give notice that I will follow this matter up, since it seems to me to be something that anybody with an ounce of Canadian nationalism in him can develop, when the CIDA estimates come before the external affairs committee next year.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in answer

December 13, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
to the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants, I must say that Canadian policy, with regard to contracts awarded for the shipment of goods provided under the Canadian foreign aid program is regulated by a set of criteria established by CIDA. The standards apply to the procedure of payment for ocean shipping and insurance. Ocean shipping and insurance are contracted through Canadian brokers and forwarders. The shipment is made from Canadian ports.
In view of the limited number of Canadian ships registered in the Canadian merchant marine, it is very often impossible to use a Canadian ship for the shipment of those goods. The Canadian broker then makes arrangements to ship the supplies on any ship available, whatever its nationality. Therefore, I can only assert once again that shipments are made through Canadian brokers and on Canadian ships when the latter are available. In any case, the primary concern is to ensure delivery of the supplies in accordance with the time limit set for the execution of the project and to meet priority requirements of recipient countries.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-FISHERIES TREATY WITH NORWAY-REQUEST FOR OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS TERMS

['Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. John\'s East (Mr. McGrath) said three times in his speech that there was secrecy in this department. A little like the kink in "Alice", he seems to believe that because he says something three times it must be true. It was also notable that he offered not one single example in his speech of a situation where he was refused information or knowledge. In fact, this department is as forthcoming as any other in providing the information members want to receive about this program.\nThe hon. member indicated that over the past five years there have been the difficulties to which he referred regarding employment rates. He seems to belong to that\nschool of thought that believes in using magic as one approach to solving a problem. I would remind him that these problems have developed over the course of well over 100 years. Yet he seems to think that within the short space of the 2i years during which this department has been operating it should be able to resolve the problems to which he refers.\nThe department is under no illusion that these objectives can be accomplished overnight. The deep-rooted problems of decades cannot be swept away in one or two years. The minister has emphasized over and over again that it will take at least 15 years before the programs which were put in place in 1969 will have brought the slow-growth regions to the point at which they are ready to take off into self-sustaining growth.\nConsequently, criticisms of the department which assert that our programs have little or no impact on regional disparities are simply misdirected. Such criticisms accuse us of not having achieved in 21 years-or, as the hon. member would have it, five years; this department has been in existence for only 2 *>\nyears-what we always said would take up to 15 years to accomplish. Moreover, by clamouring for dramatic results long before such results can reasonably be expected, the critics are doing a great disservice to regional policy in this country. They are tending to undermine programs which have barely had a chance to get properly off the ground. I would be delighted to receive from the hon. member some constructive suggestions about how to improve the programs of the department. In the various encounters that we have had on the "late show" I have not heard one constructive suggestion coming from the hon. member regarding how these programs can be improved.\nMoreover, the available data do not support the contention that departmental programs are having no effect on regional disparities. In fact, there are already encouraging signs that our programs are beginning to bite even though these signs are necessarily tentative at this point of time. No matter what criterion one examines, whether it be investment, growth in manufacturing, employment, income differentials, the unemployment gap or labour force participation rates, there are unmistakable indications that the Atlantic region is in a healthier position at the beginning of the seventies than at any time in the post-war period. One would expect the hon. member to welcome this and try to give us an indication of how the programs can be improved. I hope that reasonably soon he will take the opportunity of doing just that.\nMotion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.\nDecember 13, 1971']
Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, the Canada-Norway fishing and sealing agreements which were signed on July 15 of this year and tabled in the House of Commons on December 2, because someone other than the Canadian government had made them public have caused and will continue to cause much concern. I am glad that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) is in his place tonight to answer some questions. Members of Parliament from Canada's east coast appear to be upset because the agreement will permit Norway to take seals within Canadian territorial waters three miles from land.


James Aloysius McGrath: Shame.


Winona Grace MacInnis: These members, and no doubt some other members across Canada, approve the annual seal slaughter. Their main concern is to keep a monopoly of it in this country. My concern is quite different. Along with a growing number of people, not only in Canada but throughout the world, I want to see this wholesale massacre eliminated. To the extent that this Canada-Norway agreement will protect the seal stocks of the Atlantic, as the Minister of the Environment claims it will, I think the agreement is a forward step.
Before I may be sure of that, I have a number of questions that I wish to ask. That is why I pressed the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) to say whether or not the government will give us an opportunity to debate the terms of the agreement in Parliament before it is ratified. From his reply I have gathered that we will not get this chance. Therefore, I must ask a few questions tonight. The rest will have to wait for a later occasion.
Is the Minister of the Environment satisfied that this agreement will save the harp seal population from extinction? I have seen estimates showing that the number of harp seals in the gulf and in the front were cut sharply
IMr. Isabelle.J
from 31 million in 1950 to 1 a million in 1970, a reduction of over 50 per cent in 20 years. At least one marine biologist has warned that the species will be extinct in 12 years' time if the present rate of kill is maintained. What is to prevent the harp seal going the same route as the now extinct sea otter, tne passenger pigeon or any one of the other 66 gravely endangered species listed by the Canadian Wildlife Federation?
The Canadian Wildlife Federation is a non-profit organization and therefore capable of a judgment uncoloured by the desire to kill these creatures for monetary gain. Is the name of its representative among those of the Canadian delegates to the Canada-Norway negotiations which took place in Ottawa last April and which led to the fishing agreement in July? It is not. Eight of the twelve names are those of federal government departmental officials. The ninth comes from the Fisheries Council of Canada, an industry-oriented organization. The tenth is a director of a Canadian subsidiary of a New York fur importing company. Between them, parent and subsidiary take Canadian seal skins or products to Norway and the United States. The last two names represent a sealing vessel firm operating out of Halifax, one of these men, I am told, being the Norwegian consul for the port of Halifax.
In view of such heavy representation of sealing interests on the body which negotiated the Canada-Norway agreement, is it any wonder that people have misgivings about the value of that agreement as a conservation measure? Similar questions arise in the memo issued last May by the World Federation for the Protection of Animals, the headquarters of which are in Zurich, Switzerland. The memo was sent to the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries and was on the subject of seal killing. It emphasized that the harp seal appears to be in grave danger of not surviving just at the time when its value to the regional ecology is being established. If a greatly reduced quota for seal killing is introduced, the viability of commercial sealing will be threatened in any case. The memo concludes:
Sealing has not been justified on statistical, commercial, ecological nor any other grounds-Sealing only produces products for which synthetic alternatives are available-It has clearly become an unacceptable anachronism and should be ended.
I repeat, this is the opinion of an international body, the World Federation for the Protection of Animals, with headquarters at Zurich, Switzerland. I conclude by again expressing my conviction that a debate on this whole matter in Parliament is long overdue. Not only the citizens of Canada but people all over the world are concerned about protecting the ecology and the wildlife that makes human life possible.
This matter has many facets. I have touched on only one this evening. There are others, perhaps on the east coast of Canada, that are also interesting. Members who represent that area should have a right to bring out the facts in this matter. We should air all angles of this subject before it is finally settled. This is a matter of great concern to Canadians. I see no reason why we should not have an opportunity to give it a very thorough investigation before this treaty is finally ratified.
December 13, 1971


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, this is a big country. It is populated by people who make their living in very different ways. People on the east coast, particularly on the Labrador and northeastern coast of Newfoundland, earn their livelihood by fishing and occasionally by sealing. To them, the seal problem, if I may call it that, is a matter of whether they are going to eat well. To people on Canada's west coast it is another spectacle which appears over television, something about which they would like to know a great deal more and something which they are genuinely concerned about. I refer to the possible extinction of a species. They are not directly concerned with sealing as a source of livelihood. For many people on the east coast it provides up to half their income. This is a matter of real concern to them, rather than curiosity or alarm, as is the case with many well-meaning people in other parts of Canada.
Ninety per cent of the correspondence relative to seals comes from foreign countries with a high standard of living. Of the letters that come from Canadian sources, 80 per cent come from Toronto, Vancouver and to a lesser extent Montreal. Very few letters come from the Atlantic region. Nearly all of the latter say that the seal hunt should be continued. Last year we received 1,000 letters from Canadians. Only 2 per cent of those letters came from areas which are heavily dependent on sealing.
Our main concern, where we are considering this hunt which is essential to the Eskimo people, native Indian people and to others living in outport areas, is whether the seal herds will become extinct as a result of hunting. A special committee was set up under Dr. Keith Ronald of Guelph University. It is nammed by international experts. This committee will be reporting to us within the next few weeks. It is taking an objective look at the whole situation, not only in respect to the animal populations, but also as to the cruelty or otherwise of the hunt. When this report is received, it will be published. We will all have an opportunity to debate it.
With regard to the Canada-Norway agreement, it applies in the North-Atlantic, not in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. We are referring essentielly to those seals which are often found outside of Canadian waters. It is necessary to have an agreement with Norway to assure that the total herd is protected. That is the main reason for the Canada-Norway agreement. I believe there should be a debate on this subject. We will shortly have a lot more information from international experts. Meanwhile, I expect the Canada-Norway agreement to work because we will all be relying on international experts to protect the seal herd from extinction.



James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, on December 8 I directed a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand), one of a series of questions I have been putting to the minister lately. It was prompted by the November unemployment figures released by Statistics Canada and it had to do with the growing rate of unemployment in the Atlantic provinces and the failure of the government's regional development policies to have any marked effect.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Out of a sense of frustration, and because of my failure and the failure of other hon. members to get worth-while answers or information from the minister, I suggested that the hon. gentleman give consideration to resigning because it appears his policies are not working.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Perhaps there is no better way of summing up the situation than to quote the Prime Minister of Quebec, as reported on November 20 by Canadian Press, without doubt the most reliable press agency in Canada. The Prime minister of Quebec is reported as saying: Regional disparities .. . have not yet been affected by federal policies after three and one-half years of power. The gaps are still the same, even if there has been slight progress in the ease of Quebec.
As I say, what prompted my latest question were the new employment figures. I think it would be worth while to place them on record because they show a continuing and serious escalation. As a matter of fact, a pattern has been developing over the last five years, a period during which regional development policies are suppored to have been taking effect. In the case of the Atlantic provinces as a whole, the figure for November was 9.7 per cent, seasonally adjusted, as rate opposed to 7.6 per cent for the previous year.
The figures break down as follows. The rate for Newfoundland was 11.4 per cent as opposed to 9.1 per cent for the previous year. In Prince Edward Island it was 7.5 per cent as compared with 5.6 per cent for the previous year. In Nova Scotia it was 7.4 per cent as compared with 4.9 per cent. In New Brunswick it was 6.5 per cent as against 6.2 per cent. Newfoundland, with the highest rate of 11.4 per cent, and Prince Edward Island with the second highest rate of 7.5 per cent, are two of the provinces to which substantial sums have been directed under the regional economic expansion policy. The total number of unemployed in the Atlantic provinces stands at 54,000 as compared with 42,000 last year. Increases of this order continue right down the line on the basis of the provincial breakdown.
Is it any wonder we are frustrated? We are frustrated because we are supposed to be witnessing the effects of a regional development policy and our efforts to get meaningful answers from the minister have failed. We are frustrated in our efforts to get the minister to address himself to the fact that despite the pumping of substantial sums of federal money under the regional development program into the four Atlantic provinces, the rate of unemployment continues to increase.
Meanwhile, there has been criticism from the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, the Atlantic Development Council, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and economists in the area. I can think of nobody across the country who has had a kind word to say about the way in which the government is going about this program of trying to end regional disparity.
The best we can get from the minister at any time criticism is levelled at the program, or any time the minister attempts to address himself to these criticisms, is veiled threats to withdraw the program. I do not think that is good enough. If the program is worth while, it must

December 13, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
stand the examination of critics. It must also be able to withstand the constructive criticism that can only help the program.
The Evening Telegram for October 14, 1971, carried a press despatch, again a Canadian Press despatch, headlined "Government prepared to withdraw DREE, Mar-chand tells critics" and in a direct quotation reports the minister as saying:
But if it is established that our whole program is not serving any useful purpose, of course well withdraw it.
The minister made a similar statement a few months previous to this in Charlottetown when he met with the premiers of the three maritime provinces. I maintain that the minister should be addressing himself to this problem and responding and reacting to the constructive criticism that have been levelled at the program both in this House and across the country. Cynical though the minister is, he knows we all want this program to work. It must work. It is our only hope. In the Atlantic provinces it is the only program we have; consequently, we want to try to improve it.
This is why we direct constructive criticism at the minister. However, we are frustrated in our attempts because the minister refuses to answer questions in this House. He also refuses to respond to the recommendations made by his own agencies, agencies that have been empowered by Parliament under statute to advise the minister. I think now of the Atlantic Development Council and the Canadian Rural Development Council. Both these agencies have made constructive criticisms of the program, yet the minister has refused to make any policy statement on the recommendations that have been made. I believe that in light of this evidence the minister either has to respond by making a statement in this House or he has no alternative but to offer his resignation.


Mr. John Roberts (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) said three times in his speech that there was secrecy in this department. A little like the kink in "Alice", he seems to believe that because he says something three times it must be true. It was also notable that he offered not one single example in his speech of a situation where he was refused information or knowledge. In fact, this department is as forthcoming as any other in providing the information members want to receive about this program.
The hon. member indicated that over the past five years there have been the difficulties to which he referred regarding employment rates. He seems to belong to that
school of thought that believes in using magic as one approach to solving a problem. I would remind him that these problems have developed over the course of well over 100 years. Yet he seems to think that within the short space of the 2i years during which this department has been operating it should be able to resolve the problems to which he refers.
The department is under no illusion that these objectives can be accomplished overnight. The deep-rooted problems of decades cannot be swept away in one or two years. The minister has emphasized over and over again that it will take at least 15 years before the programs which were put in place in 1969 will have brought the slow-growth regions to the point at which they are ready to take off into self-sustaining growth.
Consequently, criticisms of the department which assert that our programs have little or no impact on regional disparities are simply misdirected. Such criticisms accuse us of not having achieved in 21 years-or, as the hon. member would have it, five years; this department has been in existence for only 2 *>
years-what we always said would take up to 15 years to accomplish. Moreover, by clamouring for dramatic results long before such results can reasonably be expected, the critics are doing a great disservice to regional policy in this country. They are tending to undermine programs which have barely had a chance to get properly off the ground. I would be delighted to receive from the hon. member some constructive suggestions about how to improve the programs of the department. In the various encounters that we have had on the "late show" I have not heard one constructive suggestion coming from the hon. member regarding how these programs can be improved.
Moreover, the available data do not support the contention that departmental programs are having no effect on regional disparities. In fact, there are already encouraging signs that our programs are beginning to bite even though these signs are necessarily tentative at this point of time. No matter what criterion one examines, whether it be investment, growth in manufacturing, employment, income differentials, the unemployment gap or labour force participation rates, there are unmistakable indications that the Atlantic region is in a healthier position at the beginning of the seventies than at any time in the post-war period. One would expect the hon. member to welcome this and try to give us an indication of how the programs can be improved. I hope that reasonably soon he will take the opportunity of doing just that.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.
December 13, 1971


APPENDIX
[Stage Direction]
For immediate release 10th December, 1971.
1.	The North Atlantic Council met in Ministerial Session in Brussels on 9th and 10th December, 1971. Foreign and Defence Ministers were present.
2.	Ministers stressed that their governments would continue to pursue their long-standing objectives of achieving, through a genuine relaxation of tensions, a just and lasting peace and stability in Europe. They recalled that since the creation of the Alliance over twenty years ago the treaty area has been free of armed conflict and that under existing international conditions the North Atlantic Treaty remains indispensable for the security of member States.
3.	Ministers examined the international situation and expressed their deep concern over the tragic events in Southern Asia. It is their fervent hope that hostilities between India and Pakistan will give way to an early and peaceful solution of all aspects of the conflict.
4.	Turning to developments in and around Europe, including the Mediterranean, Ministers reviewed the status of the various initiatives undertaken or supported by the Allies and assessed the results of the numerous bilateral contacts between the Allies and other European states.
5.	Ministers noted the effects which continuing difficulties in trade and monetary policy could have, among other things, on the state of the Alliance. They were encouraged by the various efforts underway in other fora to remedy these difficulties in the economic sphere. The Ministers decided to keep this matter under continuing review.
6.	Ministers took note with satisfaction of the signature, on 3rd September, 1971, of the Quadripartite Agreement on Berlin. They also noted that the German arrangements to implement and supplement the Quadripartite Agreement now appear to be nearing completion, and that, once these arrangements have been concluded, the Governments of France, the United Kingdom and the United States would be prepared to sign forthwith the final Quadripartite Protocol which would bring the complete Berlin Agreement into effect. Ministers expressed the hope that this would soon be achieved.
7.	Ministers viewed this emerging Agreement as an important and encouraging development. Once completed and in effect, the Agreement should bring about practical improvements, while maintaining the Quadripartite status
of Berlin and the rights and responsibilities of France, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Soviet Union with regard to Berlin and Germany as a whole. Specifically, Ministers noted that movement of civilian persons and goods between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Western Sectors of Berlin will then be unimpeded, and that the residents of the Western Sectors will be able to visit East Berlin and the GDR. Ministers also welcomed the assurance in the Quadripartite Agreement that the ties between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Western Sectors of Berlin will be maintained and developed.
8.	Ministers considered that achievement of the Berlin Agreement would also demonstrate that, with a constructive attitude on all sides, it should be possible to reach reasonable solutions between the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic which take into account the special situation in Germany. Ministers took the view that this example would encourage progress on other problems in Europe.
9.	Ministers recalled that at their meeting in Lisbon they declared their readiness to undertake multilateral conversations intended to lead to a Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe as soon as the negotiations on Berlin had reached a successful conclusion. In the light of the encouraging developments referred to above they affirmed their readiness to initiate such conversations on this basis as soon as possible.
10.	In this perspective, they propose to intensify their preparations and their bilateral contacts with other interested parties.
11.	Ministers also took note of the invitation of the Finnish Government to the effect that heads of mission of the countries concerned accredited in Helsinki should undertake multilateral conversations. They stated that their Governments appreciated this initiative and that they will keep in touch with the Finnish Government in order to consult on this matter.
12.	Ministers considered that a Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe should not serve to perpetuate the post-war division of Europe but rather should contribute to reconciliation and co-operation between the participating states by initiating a process of reducing the barriers that still exist. Therefore, Ministers reaffirmed that the Conference should address in a concrete manner the underlying causes of tension in Europe and the basic principles which should govern relations among states irrespective of political and social systems.
[Stage Direction]
December 13, 1971
13.	Ministers took note of the report of the Council in Permanent Session concerning a Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. This report examined four areas of discussion at such a conference: (A) Questions of Security, including Principles Governing Relations between States and certain military aspects of security; (B) Freer Movement of People, Information and Ideas, and Cultural Relations; (C) Co-operation in the Fields of Economics, Applied Science and Technology, and Pure Science; and (D) Co-operation to Improve the Human Environment. Ministers requested the Council in Permanent Session to continue these studies with a view to facilitating a constructive discussion of these subjects at the negotiations.
14.	Ministers representing countries which participate in the NATO integrated defence programme reaffirmed their longstanding belief that a mutual and balanced reduction of forces in Central Europe which preserves the legitimate security interests of all concerned would maintain security and enhance stability in Europe, make an important contribution to the easing of tension and improve East-West relations generally.
15.	These Ministers reviewed the developments with respect to mutual and balanced force reductions since their last meeting in Lisbon. They reaffirmed the decisions taken at the meeting of Deputy Foreign Ministers and High Officials on 5th and 6th October, 1971, to propose exploratory talks with the Soviet Government and other interested governments and to charge Mr. Brosio with this mission on the basis of a substantive mandate. They expressed their thanks to Mr. Brosio for accepting.
16.	These Ministers noted with regret that the Soviet Government has so far failed to respond to the Allied initiative in this important area of East-West relations in which that Government had earlier expressed an interest. Noting statements by Soviet leaders to the effect that they hoped East-West talks on force reductions in Europe would begin as soon as possible, these Ministers hope that Mr. Brosio will soon be able to go to Moscow. The interested Allied Governments continue to believe that prior explorations of this question are essential in preparation for eventual multilateral negotiations.
17.	These Ministers emphasized the importance they attach to measures which would reduce the dangers of military confrontation and thus enhance security in Europe. They noted that a Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe should deal with these aspects in a suitable manner.
18.	Ministers noted a report on further studies conducted within NATO on mutual and balanced force reductions since the Lisbon Meeting. They instructed the Permanent Representatives to continue this work.
19.	Ministers welcomed the fact that the negotiations between the US and USSR on strategic arms limitations have resulted in concrete agreements to reduce the risk of accidental nuclear war and to improve communication arrangements between the two governments. Satisfaction was expressed for the close Alliance consultation which has been conducted throughout the course of the Strategic Arms Limitations talks. Ministers expressed the hope
that these negotiations will soon lead to agreements which would curb the competition in strategic arms and strengthen international peace and security.
20.	Ministers reaffirmed their determination to promote progress in disarmament and arms control and reviewed recent developments in these fields. They expressed satisfaction at the measures envisaged to prohibit the development, production and stockpiling of bacteriological (biological) and toxin weapons and their destruction. They hoped that all States will adopt similar measures. Ministers also expressed the hope that headway could be made towards reaching an agreement on the controlled prohibition of chemical weapons. Ministers representing countries which participate in the NATO integrated defence programme noted with interest the efforts being undertaken to find effective means for the verification of an eventual agreement on a comprehensive test ban.
21.	Ministers took note of a report on the situation in the Mediterranean prepared on their instructions by the Council in Permanent Session. They reaffirmed their concern about the course of events in this area, while expressing their hope that a peaceful solution would be found in the Eastern Mediterranean. In the light of the conclusions of the report before them, they instructed the Council in Permanent Session to continue consultations on this subject and to follow the evolution of the various aspects of the situation in order to report thereon at their next meeting.
22.	Ministers were pleased by the new achievements of the Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society (CCMS) in its studies, especially in the fields of air and water pollution, and by the initiation of a project on the application of modern technology to health care.
23.	The Spring Ministerial Meeting of the Council will be held in Bonn on 30th and 31st May, 1972.
24.	Ministers requested the Foreign Minister of Belgium to transmit the text of the preceding paragraphs on their behalf through diplomatic channels to all other interested parties, including neutral and non-aligned governments.
25.	Ministers of the countries participating in NATO's integrated defence programme met as the Defence Planning Committee.
26.	In the light of the considerations outlined in the preceding paragraphs, they emphasised that NATO's efforts to achieve sufficient defence capabilities and the striving for detente are not incompatible but complementary, and that sufficient and credible defence is a necessary corollary to realistic negotiations on security and co-operation in Europe. In the same context and as a fundamental principle, these Ministers reaffirmed the well-known position of the Alliance that its overall military capability should not be reduced except as part of a pattern of mutual force reductions balanced in scope and timing.
27.	These Ministers discussed mutual and balanced force reductions (MBFR) and reaffirmed their intent to continue their close involvement in the development of common allied positions.
December 13, 1971
[Stage Direction]
28.	They noted the growth of Soviet military efforts in recent years and the indications that the Soviet Union continues to strengthen both its strategic nuclear and its conventional forces, especially naval forces. They therefore agreed on the need for continued and systematic improvement of NATO's conventional forces and for the maintenance of adequate and modern tactical and strategic nuclear forces in order to ensure that the deterrent remains effective at all levels, and in order to avoid weakening the basis of NATO's search for detente.
29.	They discussed a follow-up report to the Alliance Defence Study for the Seventies (the AD 70 Study). They welcomed the progress being made by members in improving Alliance defences. In particular they noted with satisfaction the further specific and important efforts announced on 7th December by those European member countries which participated in the European Defence Improvement Programme, and recognised the emphasis which these European member countries are placing on modernising the equipment of their forces, land, sea and air, along AD 70 lines. They also welcomed the substantial improvements to their conventional forces planned by the United States, and they noted with satisfaction the enhanced United States contribution to NATO's strategic deterrent which will result from the deployment of the POSEIDON weapon system. They heard with appreciation the reaffirmation by the United States Secretary of Defense that, given a similar approach by the other Allies, the United States would maintain and improve their own forces in Europe and would not reduce them except in the context of reciprocal East-West action.
30.	They endorsed the priority areas which were proposed to them for the further implementation of the AD 70 recommendations. Within these areas they identified for early action certain fields such as additional anti-tank weapons and modern tanks; advanced electronic equipment for certain combat aircraft; improved all-weather
strike, attack and reconnaissance air forces; improved air defences and aircraft protection; better maritime surveillance and anti-submarine forces; more maritime patrol aircraft and seaborne missile systems; the replacement of over-age ships; the strengthening and modernisation of local and reinforcement forces on the Northern and South-Eastern Flanks; and larger ammunition stocks for land and air forces.
31.	They recognised the global nature of the Soviet maritime capability, and in particular the deployments and activities of the Soviet fleets in the Atlantic and in the Mediterranean. In their discussion they reaffirmed the need for appropriate Allied measures, and reviewed progress.
32.	They noted the force commitments undertaken by member nations for the year 1972 and they adopted a five-year NATO Force Plan for the period 1972-1976, including many AD 70 implementation measures.
33.	They concluded that the aim within NATO should be to allocate to defence purposes, where this is within the economic capability of countries, a stable and possibly larger proportion of their growing national wealth, in order to maintain an adequate deterrent and defensive capability.
34.	The Defence Ministers comprising the Nuclear Defence Affairs Committee (Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States) also convened to examine reports on the activity of the Nuclear Planning Group during the past year and on its projected work.
35.	The next Ministerial meeting of the Defence Planning Committee will be held in the Spring of 1972.
10435
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday. December 14, 1971