1971-12-15

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, as recorded at page 10,406 of this Monday's Hansard, the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Leblanc) made the following statement:
... CICA members . .. 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 can they understand (the bill), if they don't even go to the official information sources . . .
Mr. Speaker, I myself had been delegated by my colleagues to attend the course given by chartered accountants. The statement of the hon. member for Laurier is totally erroneous and untrue. Either the hon. member for Laurier has willfully mislead the House, or else he was asleep during the courses given by the CICA because I was there myself. I was sitting near the hon. member for Montreal-Bourassa (Mr. Trudel) and the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Gendron); the hon. member for Laurier was also sitting near me. Obviously, his memory has failed him and, besides, his mind must have been somewhere else.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have been to see the Governor General and I should like to make an announcement. I should like to announce that Her Majesty the Queen has been pleased to approve the continuance in office of the Right Honourable Roland Michener as Governor General of Canada until the spring of 1973, and that the Governor General has indicated his willingness to remain in office for this period.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Canadian people fully appreciate the dedicated and distinguished manner in which the right hon. Mr. Michener has carried out the high responsibilities of his office, so ably assisted by Mrs. Michener, and I
am certain, Mr. Speaker, that they will welcome Her Majesty's approval of the Governor General's continuance in office.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Does the CNR intend to use their powers of expropriation to build a spur line through Hawkesbury Airport in Ontario?
2.	Will the proposed spur line diminish the safety of operations at the Hawkesbury Airport by reducing the normal landing and take-off area?
3.	Has consideration been given to relocating the spur line so that a minimum loss of property now utilized by aircraft will result?
4.	What responsibility does the Minister of Transport have to grant protection to an airport which his Ministry licensed as a public facility, against encroachment by industry?


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. Yes.
3.	Yes.
The Department of Transport advises as follows: 2. The spur line will have no adverse affect on light aircraft operations at this airport.
4.	The Department of Transport licences an airport when it meets the required standards. If these licencing standards are not met as a result of an encroachment of any kind, the licence is withdrawn or restricted. For privately owned airports any dispute concerning encroachment remains a matter between the two parties concerned. In the case of Department of Transport airports these matters are settled by direct negotiation.


REGINA DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
Mr. Robinson: Will the government make public the feasibility study and operations plan for the Regina demonstration project as completed by Kates, Peat, Marwick and Company?


Gérard Duquet: The work undertaken by Kates, Peat, Marwick and Company as part of the Regina demonstration project has been published, and is available in limited quantity from the Transportation Development Agency. A summary report has also been prepared by the project Steering Committee, and copies are available from

December 15, 1971
Questions
5.	What means are used to collect these debts?
6.	Is an accounts receivable balance system used?
Regina Transit System or from the Transportation Development Agency.


PENITENTIARIES-PROFESSIONAL STAFF
Mr. Orlikow: How many of the psychologists, psychiatrists, physicians and dentists, employed by the government work full time at the penitentiaries and, of those who work part time, how many hours per week does each work in the penitentiaries?


Hon. lean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: By the
Department of the Solicitor General:
Number	Number	Hours/weekemployed	employed	part timeSpecialists	full time	part time	employeesPsychologists	28	0	NilPsychiatrists	5	2	15 (all categories)Physicians	10	1	15Dentists	4	4	15 (all categories)
N.B.-In addition, the following specialists work on contract, on a "fee per visit" basis:
Specialists
Psychiatrists
Physicians
Dentists
Number
10


DEVELOPMENT LOAN TO TURKEY
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Has a five million dollar development loan been advanced to Turkey and, if so, is it being spent under the framework of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development?
2.	What is the repayment arrangement?
3.	What is the interest rate on the loan?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. A five million dollar development loan was pledged to Turkey in 1969 by Canada as a member of the OECD aid consortium for Turkey. It is not being spent under the framework of OECD, though that Organization is kept fully informed of developments regarding the planned utilization of the funds.
2.	Repayment in 30 years, with an initial grace period of seven years.
3.	The interest rate is three per cent.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION-COLLECTION OF OVERPAYMENTS
Mr. Hales: 1.	Does the Unemployment Insurance Commission have a collection department for outstanding debts or overpayment to claimants?
2.	What is the total amount of these receivables?
3.	What were the amounts for each of the years 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969 and 1970?
4.	What are the amounts outstanding that fall into the following classifications (a) 1-2 months (b) 3-6 months (c) 6-12 months (d) 1 year (e) 2 years (f) 3 years (g) 4 years (h) 5 years?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: 1. The
Unemployment Insurance Commission has a collection section in each district office with responsibility for collection of overpayments of benefits to claimants.
2. The total amount of receivables relating to overpayment of benefits to claimants at March 31, 1971, was $5,687,199.
3. Amounts for previous years
Fiscal Year
1965/1966
1966/1967
1967/1968
1968/1969
1969/1970
Overpayment
Receivables

4.	The Commission's Accounts Receivable system records the outstandings on a quarterly aging process and the balances for March 31, 1971, were as follows: (a) Less than 3 months, $1,088,319; (b) 3-6 months, $786,963; (c) 6-12 months, $878,543; (d) 1 year, $1,159,780; (e) 2 years, $553,044; (f) 3 years and over, $1,220,550; (g) 4 years, N/A; (h) 5 years, N/A.
Note: Figures for four years and five years are not kept separately.
5.	Collection procedures begin by contact with the claimant by letter, requesting payment or arrangements for repayment. If the claimant does not respond to such requests, facts are gathered on the claimant's ability to repay and further collection action is taken as considered appropriate in each particular case. If the claimant files a new claim, any outstanding overpayment is collected from any benefits which may become payable.
6.	A system for recording of the balance for each account receivable is maintained.


DRUGS-CHARGES FOR INDICTABLE OFFENCES WHILE UNDER INFLUENCE OF DRUGS
Mr. Yewchuk: For each year 1964 to 1970, how many (a) males (b) females in the age groups 16-24 and 25-44, and under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs, were charged and convicted of indictable offenses (i) against the person (ii) against property with violence (iii) against property without violence (iv) malicious offences against property?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: The Department of the Solicitor General, the Department of Justice and Statistics Canada do not have at its disposal any records which would indicate whether or not an accused person was under the influence of a drug during the commission of any of the offences referred to in Question number 2,075 above.


APPLICATIONS FOR UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Robinson: How many applications were made for unemployment insurance by (a) males (b) females, in each year 1960 to 1970 inclusive?
December 15, 1971


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Fiscal	Number of
Year	Applications
1961/62	2,373,921
1962/63	2,144,321
1963/64	1,946,574
1964/65	1,830,802
1965/66	1,589,163
1966/67	1,619,786
1967/68	1,887,429
1968/69	1,845,559
1969/70	1,930,495
1970/71	2,307,212
*These figures include initial and renewal claims. Statistics concerning applications filed by males or females are not kept separately.


RCMP RECRUITMENT
Mr. Robinson: Has there been any increase in the past three years in the number of recruits for Royal Canadian Mounted Police and, if so, how many have been recruited?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: There was an increase in the 1970/71 fiscal year over the previous three fiscal years, which is reflected in the figures hereunder:
Fiscal year	Recruits engaged
1967/68	819
1968/69	814
1969/70	643
1970/71	844


NUMBER OF DEATH SENTENCES COMMUTED SINCE 1967
Mr. Robinson: Since December 1967, how many convicted criminals have had their death sentence commuted to life imprisonment and how many, if any, have been paroled?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Since
December 1967, 20 convicted criminals have had their death sentence commuted to life imprisonment and none of these has been paroled to date. This figure includes 17 who had been convicted and sentenced to death prior to December 29, 1967.
NUMBER OF DEATH SENTENCES COMMUTED IN EACH YEAR 1961 to 1971


Mr. Robinson: How many convicted criminals have had their death sentence commuted to life imprisonment in each year 1961 to 1970 inclusive and 1971 to date?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1961, 10; 1962, 2; 1963, 6; 1964, 3; 1965, 7; 1966, 5; 1967, 4; 1968, 17; 1969, 1; 1970, 1; 1971 to date, 1.
N.B. The figure for 1968 reflects the fact that after the change in the law restricting the cases in which murder was punishable by death, the sentences of those whose
Orders for Return
offence would not have been capital under the new legislation were all committed to life imprisonment.


AMOS, QUEBEC-ALTERATIONS TO INDIAN RESIDENCE
Mr. Laprise: Does the government intend to make any improvements or alterations to the residence for Indians in the city of Amos, Quebec, and, if so, on what date and of what nature?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: There are no immediate plans for any major alterations to the Amos Student Residence. During the past year alterations and major repairs were made to the water system and, at present, the inside of the residence is being painted.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE-APPLICATIONS FROM PEI
Mr. McQuaid: 1.	How many applications were received for Unemployment Insurance benefits from the Province of Prince Edward Island for each year 1968, 1969 and 1970?
2.	Of the applications received for each year, how many were approved?
3.	For each year, what amount was paid out in Prince Edward Island for Unemployment Insurance benefits?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: 1. Initial applications received. In 1968/69, 11,122; 1969/70, 10,439; 1970/71, 11,286.
2.	Benefit periods established. In 1968/69, 10,053; 1969/70, 9,104; 1970/71, 10,819.
3.	Amount of benefit paid. In 1968/69, $3,852,078; 1969/70, $3,853,391; 1970/71, $4,510,024.


STUDY OF FINANCIAL METHODS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT
Mr. Mather: Did the Bank of Canada send a representative to British Columbia to study the financial methods of the British Columbia Government and, if so, is he still in British Columbia and has he made reports to the Bank of Canada?


Hon.   E.J. Benson@Minister of Finance: In view of the increasing importance of Vancouver as a financial centre, the Securities Department of the Bank of Canada appointed a Vancouver representative in March, 1968, and has maintained a representative there since that time. The Vancouver representative is in constant touch with developments in financial markets in his area and in the course of his duties maintains close contact with the banking, investment and business communities and with provincial and municipal officials. The Bank of Canada Agent in Vancouver also has broad contacts with the local community and Bank of Canada officers from Ottawa make periodic visits to keep abreast of developments in the area.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. McQuaid: For the periods ended March 31, 1970 and March 31, 1971, were any amounts in excess of $2,000 paid by any department to medi-

December 15, 1971
Motions for Papers
cal doctors or associations of doctors practising in Prince Edward Island and, if so (a) what were the amounts (b) who were the doctors or association of doctors (c) what amount was paid to each individual doctor or association of doctors (d) on what basis was the selection of doctors made?
Return tabled.


CANADIAN PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What was the total number of inmates in federal penitentiaries as of the last date for which the annual report was prepared?
2.	What is the total staff employed in these penitentiaries and, of these, how many are (a) guards (b) teachers (c) psychologists (d) psychiatrists (e) others?
3.	What qualifications are required for the professional staff?
4.	What are the minimum qualifications for guards?
5.	Is there a compulsory training course for people hired as guards and, if so, what type of course is given and what is the duration of this course?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 265 is acceptable to the Lggoovernment.



COPY OF PRICE WATERHOUSE REPORT CONCERNING ECONOMIC PROBLEMS IN CORNWALL, ONTARIO

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 265-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of a report prepared by Price Waterhouse Associates for the government concerning economic problems in the City of Cornwall, Ontario.
Motion agreed to.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 253 is acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents and to the authorization of the government authorities concerned.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING FORTHCOMING CONFERENCE OF FRANCOPHONE STATES

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 253-Mr. Macquarrie:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence, telegrams, memoranda, etc., between the Government of Canada and the governments of the provinces concerning the forthcoming conference of Francophone States.
Motion agreed to.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 261 and 263?



COPY OF UNITED STATES COMMUNICATION PROPOSING CONSTRUCTION OF PIPELINE FROM ALASKA TO SOUTHERN 48 STATES

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 261-Mr. Anderson:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the United States communication of 1970 proposing the construction of an oil pipeline from Alaska to the Southern 48 States via Canada, referred to by Mr. James Akins of the United States State Department as quoted on page 10 of the Washington Daily News of 18 October 1971.
Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Motion stands.



EXPECTED VIOLATIONS OF FUR SEALS AND MIGRATORY BIRDS CONVENTIONS IF TAPS TANKER ROUTE ESTABLISHED

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 263-Mr. Anderson:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence with the United States Government outlining the violation of the Pacific Fur Seals Convention Act and the Migratory Birds Convention Act which may be expected to occur if the United States Department of the Interior permits the establishment of an Alaska pipeline/tanker system.
Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Motion stands.


James Alexander Jerome: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the other notices of motions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, now that we are nearing the end of the proposed limitation on the discussion of Bill C-259, I wish to ask the Minister of Finance how many provinces have not yet indicated an intention to amend their income tax legislation, both personal income tax and corporation income tax, so as to conform with Bill C-259?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that all have but I would like to check. I would like to take the question as notice. I believe that most or all of them have so indicated.
December 15, 1971


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Have the governments of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec indicated their intention to amend their corporation income tax to conform with the provisions of Bill C-259?


Edgar John Benson: I will have to take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker. The indication I received was that the province of Quebec would be acting along the same lines with regard to their Corporate income tax. The province of Ontario had some reservations. I really have not got the latest information with me. I will get it and supply it to my hon. friend.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I would have thought the Minister of Finance would know this before trying to ram the bill through the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I ask the Minister of Finance whether the model or proposed succession duty act, under which the minister has agreed to co-operate with the provinces in the collection of succession duties, has been prepared? Is it being prepared in consultation with the provinces and it has been sent to the provinces?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, first of all, this is a matter for the provinces. The federal government is moving out of the death duties area and the gift tax area. There have been consultations between some of our officials and provincial officials trying to assist them in developing a standard act. However, this is a matter entirely for the provinces. We cannot tell them what they should put in their acts.



FINANCE


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I wish to ask the Minister of Finance a question arising out of the apparent decision of the President of the United States and the President of France for the Americans to devalue their dollar and the expectation that other currencies will be revalued upward. I want to ask the Minister of Finance whether at the meeting of the Group of Ten which is due to take place in a few days the government of Canada will have a policy of agreeing to some kind of pegging of the Canadian dollar at some level?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker. We have indicated that our policy is that the Canadian dollar shall continue to float.


David Lewis: I then ask the Minister of Finance whether his advisors are able to assure him, if such assurance is possible for anyone to give, that the Canadian dollar will not stay at its present level after the United States dollar has been devalued so that the exporting industries in Canada will not be put at an even greater disadvantage?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian dollar has been floating freely for some 18 or 19 months now with the Canadian government intervening only to clear up market irregularities in the dollar. It should represent a fair value for the Canadian dollar vis-a-vis the United States dollar. If the United States dollar moves downward, presumably the Canadian dollar would follow, but market forces must determine where the Canadian dollar will be without intervention from the Canadian government.


David Lewis: Do the minister and his advisors have some kind of contingency plan in case the minister's hopes are not fulfilled and the Canadian dollar is kept at a higher level than he hopes it will be, with very serious consequences to parts of Canadian industry?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, our policy has been to allow the Canadian dollar to float freely, to have what is called a clean float. We intend to continue that policy.



POSSIBLE CANADIAN CONTRIBUTION TO SOLUTION OF U.S. CURRENCY PROBLEMS

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question arising out of the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the House a few days ago when he referred to Canada being willing to make a contribution toward a general solution of United States currency problems. Can the minister indicate the nature of the general contribution Canada is prepared to make?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I understand from the Secretary of State for External Affairs that he said trade rather than currency.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I suppose this is really a question of privilege arising out of the response of the Minister of Finance to my question in which he said that the Secretary of State for External Affairs had advised him that he had referred only to the solution of trade problems. If reference is made to page 10384 of Hansard one will find what the Secretary of State for External Affairs said last Monday. It reads as follows:
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.
In view of the confusion in the mind of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs knew what he was talking about when he made that statement?


Edgar John Benson: I would like to say that at all times the Secretary of State for External Affairs knows what he is talking about, much more so than the Leader of the Opposition-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

December 15, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
In view of the announcement regarding the repayment of 16 cents per hundredweight to manufacturing milk producers, could the minister advise the House if such refunds will soon be mailed to the Office des producteurs du Quebec?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what is meant by the 7 cents. Some time ago I announced there would be a refund of from 20 cents to 10 cents on the hold-back on manufacturing milk and, indeed, from 26 cents to 10 cents on that portion collected prior to June, I believe. Some of these cheques I think ought to be ready soon, but I will check on the exact date when they will be mailed.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can he indicate today the present state of the recently announced $18 million contribution toward assisting Pakistani refugees in India? Can he indicate how much of this has actually been turned over, to what authorities and in what precise form?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take notice of the question. I might add, however, that the policy of the Canadian government continues unchanged. It is our intention to make that money available to help the refugees. Needless to say, a complication arises when the refugees return to their homes, but this is a question which we will have to discuss as the situation develops.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: My supplementary question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In consideration of the clearly immense problems which will follow the cessation of hostilities, can the minister advise whether consideration is being given to stockpiling foodstuffs and materials in the area nearby and whether in particular the government is emulating the government of the United States in acquiring vast quantities of processed potatoes for distribution in this very worthy cause?


An hon. Member:: Potatoes from Prince Edward Island.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government is following these developments very closely. As I said in reply to the earlier question, the situation is now changing. We may

not have as many refugees in India as we had in the past but we will have new complications arising out of the declared policy of India to recognize the new state of Bangla Desh, which is not Canadian policy at present; so we have complications arising out of that.
I can add that, as the hon. member knows, we had made provision for help in the form of food to East Pakistan. It was impossible to deliver this food which has now been diverted and I hope it can be moved in to help. We may have to do other things as well. I am sure the hon. member would agree that the Canadian government should do everything possible to help in this humanitarian effort.


INDIA-PAKISTAN WAR-BRITISH RESOLUTION IN SECURITY COUNCIL CALLING FOR CEASEFIRE-CANADIAN POSITION ON RIGHT OF EAST PAKISTAN TO CHOOSE INDEPENDENCE
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: My question is related, Mr. Speaker. Can the Secretary of State for External Affairs inform the House whether or not the British government is proposing a compromise resolution in the Security Council which calls for a ceasefire in the India-Pakistan war but realistically recognizes the fact that the people of East Pakistan should have the right to choose independence if they so desire and that the withdrawal of Indian forces from East Pakistan is dependent on this recognition?


Mitchell William Sharp: I cannot vouch for all the contents of this resolution but I can confirm that a resolution has been put forward in the Security Council, rather along the lines we had originally proposed when the matter was before the General Assembly but which unfortunately could not be adopted at that time. We believe that something much more realistic than what was approved in the General Assembly is appropriate.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Does the Secretary of State for External Affairs go so far as to agree with the resolution that the people of East Pakistan should have the right to choose independence if they so desire?


Mitchell William Sharp: I have not seen the terms of this resolution and I would hesitate to give an answer. As the hon. gentleman knows, the problem between self-determination and the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other states is an unsettled problem.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the statement in the latest report of the Economic Council of Canada, which as the minister knows was produced recently, that "industrial productivity in Canada must increase considerably if the economy is to produce the jobs needed by the rapidly growing work force", is it the intention of the government to bring about
December 15, 1971

this increase in productivity by offering tax incentives to industries, or does it intend to use some other means?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, we have already used tax incentives, and there has been an increase in productivity in Canada in the past year, as the hon. member knows.


George Harris Hees: On a supplementary, if the minister will examine the figures he will see the increase has not been nearly satisfactory-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I would ask a supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member was recognized for the purpose of asking a supplementary and not to engage in debate. Perhaps he would ask his supplementary question.


George Harris Hees: The minister has to be set right, Mr. Speaker. As a supplementary question, is it the firm conviction of the minister that it is always better to do nothing and simply rely on providence?


Mr. Speaker:: That again is not a supplementary but debate. The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock.


MINI-TYPE SUBMARINE-CANCELLATION OF EXPORT PERMIT ISSUED TO INTERNATIONAL HYDRODYNAMICS
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I want to direct to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Having in mind the statement made in the House yesterday by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to the effect that Canada's security was the sole reason for our about-face in cancelling the export permit for the baby submarine being made in Vancouver for sale to Russia, despite the fact he indicated that some consultation had taken place between Canada and the United States, does the minister know that American components were used in the construction of this submarine? Second, does he know that, so far as defence elements are concerned, this baby vessel can only be used if connected to a mother ship?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is hardly in order. The member is asking whether the minister knows certain information. The question in those terms cannot be accepted.


CANADA COUNCIL
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State who I believe reports for the Canada Council. I base my question on information from the Canadian Authors' Associa-
Inquiries of the Ministry
tion having to do with a grant by the Canada Council of $100,000 to bring in writers and scholars from five European countries at salaries of up to $1,000 per month to tell Canadians how to write. Of the 39 who have been designated, 34 are from France and the others are from West Germany, Belgium and Italy. None are' from the United Kingdom, none from the United States, and none from Canada. Will the minister look into this matter and ascertain the basis on which this huge amount of money has been expended, and whether consideration was given to our authors in Canada, even to the members of the Press Gallery here-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: -who know how to write and do not have to have foreigners come here to tell Canadians how to write?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I shall inquire and get all the answers to the questions that the right hon. member has just put, including another one, that is whether, as usual, he has not grossly simplified this action bv the Canada Council.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, of course the hon. gentleman does not know what is going on. I direct his attention to the Canadian Authors' Association report, Toronto branch, in its bulletin of December, 1971. I am surprised that the minister, with that omniscience he has about everything, has not seen it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Egmont.


SUMMER EMPLOYMENT-EVALUATION OF GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS BY VOLUNTARY AGENCIES-OPPORTUNITY FOR DISCUSSION-POSSIBLE CONFERENCE
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. It relates to the publication last evening of the report by the Canadian Council for Social Development on its evaluation of the Opportunities for Youth and other summer youth programs funded by the federal government. In view of the number of reports being submitted by voluntary agencies, including some very important ones, what steps is the minister taking to provide an opportunity for some discussion and dialogue, and is consideration being given to holding a conference perhaps similar to the one scheduled a year ago but unfortunately cancelled because of lack of support from the government?


Gérard Pelletier: I think that last year's conference which the hon. member is referring to had been cancelled for several reasons, Mr. Speaker, and not only the one he mentioned.

December 15, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
It is obvious that the widest possible discussion on last year's program and the forms that the employment program for youth should take next summer must be favoured. We have received some proposals, timid, I must say, calling for a conference to be held at the national level and this is a suggestion that we are going to consider.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I wonder if the Minister can give any indication whether proposals will be favourably received with regard to such a conference and, in particular, with regard to some of the recommendations that have been consistently made? Has a secretariat now been organized to begin planning for next summer with a view particularly to decentralizing the program into the various regions of the country?


Gérard Pelletier: To the hon. member's last two questions, Mr. Speaker, I can give an affirmative answer. There is an active secretariat and decentralization plans have been drawn up.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour as a result of some very peculiar circumstances recently revealed by the Real Estate Association of Canada. Has the Department of National Revenue drafted a set of regulations contrary to those drafted by the minister's department and, if so, can the minister inform the House which set of regulations takes precedence?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I am not unaware of the representations of this particular group which would prefer to be included under the coverage of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. As a result of their brief I have asked my officials to meet with the Department of National Revenue in order to make certain that if there is any ambiguity or contradiction in the regulations it will be clarified immediately.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's answer but what I am trying to ascertain is whether the Department of National Revenue, because of its position with respect to the Unemployment Insurance Commission, is also drafting regulations or has drafted regulations contrary to the regulations being drafted by the minister's department. If that is so, I should like to know which regulations take precedence and which department in fact sets policy for the Unemployment Insurance Act?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, we set policy for the Unemployment Insurance Act. From January 1 next the Department of National Revenue will have the responsibility of collecting the weekly contributions of employees on behalf of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. There may be some confusion as to what an "employee" [Mr. Pelletier.J
is. It is not a question of precedence; it is a question of making sure that the regulations are uniform.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Joliette.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: One further supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member for Joliette will bear with the Chair for a moment. I will allow the hon. member for Hamilton West a second supplementary and then go to the hon. member for Joliette.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I am still asking the minister a very simple question and for some reason or other he is debating the matter. I should like to know whether the Department of National Revenue is preparing regulations which are contrary to regulations being prepared by the minister's department. That is a simple question. Is there any co-ordination between these two departments or are two sets of regulations being drafted at the same time, each unknown to the other department?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I said in answer to the original question that I had asked my officials to make sure that, even unintentionally, regulations of the Department of National Revenue were not in some way contradictory to those of my department. I want to remove this confusion and make sure that the regulations are uniform.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Joliette.


EXEMPTION DECREED BY QUEBEC FOR SCHOOL BOARD AND HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES-MINISTER'S POSITION
Mr. Roch La Salle (loliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour.
Considering that the minister in charge of Quebec civil servants stated yesterday that his government had took it upon itself to define the exception provided in section 3(3) of the Unemployment Insurance Act so that Quebec school board and hospital employees would be covered, and that the decision was taken because the federal legislation did not provide a clear definition, would the minister tell us if he intends to make that legislation more specific?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, several provinces have asked me to clarify section 3(2)(e) of the act with reference to "excepted employees". The minister in Quebec responsible for the civil service, in the absence of regulations, has included school teachers and hospital workers as civil servants. In order to remove any ambiguity and confusion the Governor in Council at my suggestion has amended the unemployment insurance regulations, in particular section 49(2), to clarify in the clearest possible terms those classes of employees to be included in the provincial option-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I assume the minister has replied to the question asked by the hon. member. Unless he wishes to revert to motions, I do not think the explanation should be pursued further.
December 15, 1971


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Joliette on a question of privilege.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, as my question is of the utmost importance, not only for Quebec which pointed out the vagueness of the federal act yesterday, but also for all the other provinces, I wonder, as you mentioned yourself, whether we should revert to motions and the House would agree to allow the minister to explain exactly where we stand with regard to this act.


Some hon. Members:: Agreeu.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the House that we revert to motions for the purpose of allowing the minister to make a statement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. [Translation]
Is the hon. member for Joliette rising on a supplementary?


Roch La Salle: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to ask the minister whether employees of school boards and hospitals in Quebec will not be subject to the new Unemployment Insurance Act.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the regulations, particularly in section 49(2), now read as follows:
For greater certainty, employment in Canada by Her Majesty in right of a province, for the purposes of subsection (I), only includes employment in Canada of employees who are appointed and remunerated under the Public Service A '* or Civil Service Act of a province-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member asking the question and to the minister giving the reply that this is not in accordance with the spirit of the question period. We have already had two long answers to two long questions and we only have limited time at our disposal. We should go on. The hon. member for Edmonton Centre.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: My question is for the Prime Minister.


George Harris Hees: Hey, buster!


Steve Eugene Paproski: 
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I shall confer with the Minister of National Health and Welfare on this, Mr. Speaker.


Steve Eugene Paproski: In light of the fact that the social development council only received $995,000 in the 1970-71 budget to monitor and research that $7 billion, can the Prime Minister assure the House that far greater funds will be made available next year and, if so, will a statement be made shortly?


Mr. Speaker:: While the matter is being considered-the hon. member, of course, is making a suggestion and he has to assume that it will be considered.


Steve Eugene Paproski: One further supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member for Edmonton Centre but I bring to the attention of hon. members that if we have two or three supplemen-taries on every question-


An hon. Member:: And no answers.


Mr. Speaker:: -whether there are answers or not, certainly there is no point in hon. members rising by the twenties or thirties hoping to participate in the question period as there is less than 15 minutes left before we call orders of the day. The hon. member for Edmonton Centre on a further supplementary.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Is the Prime Minister aware that the social development council estimates that of the $7 billion only 9 per cent was spent specifically for financial assistance and services for the very poorest in our population?


Mr. Speaker:: That is argument and not a question. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre.


ELECTIONS
Mr. Los Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: My question is directed to the President of the Privy Council. In answer to a question of mine last September 22 concerning legislation to implement the report of the Special Committee on Election Expenses the minister said that the objective of the government was to have legislation passed in this Parliament. May I ask the government House leader if that legislation is being prepared or is now ready? If it is ready, could members have the advantage of looking at it over the Christmas and New Year recess and could he assure the House that it will be presented to parliament early in the next session?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure my hon. friend that we have been working on the recommendations of the parlia-
10490

December 15, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
mentary committee and we are continuing the study of election expenses. The problem here is in fitting this important piece of legislation into the over-all legislative program. That is now under consideration and we will be reaching a decision soon as to what the legislative program for the next session of Parliament will be.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the government House leader if he will consider consulting with the House leaders of the other parties with a view to obtaining agreement in advance for rapid action on any legislation that the government will bring in?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has made his representation.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
Since a joint committee of members of the American Senate and Congress are preparing a bill on the marketing of farm products and the marketing and prices of Canadian farm products will certainly be affected, can the hon. minister tell us whether, when drafting Bill C-176 on the marketing of Canadian farm products, his department or the government has taken these facts into consideration in order to prevent adverse effects for Canadian exporters and producers?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


BARRING OF CANADIAN HOCKEY TEAMS BY BUNNY
Mr. Len Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare arising out of a story that appeared today which said that Mr. Bunny Ahearne is barring certain Canadian teams from participating in tournaments in Europe, even though these teams were invited by certain countries. I would ask the minister to find out if any bylaws are being broken and to see if any way can be found for these teams to participate in these games in which they were invited to participate.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to look into the situation.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Look into the NHL as well.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member

for Kamloops-Cariboo of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Since the so-called czar of European hockey, Bunny Ahearne, is using intimidation on host clubs in Europe, would the minister use his good offices and take this matter up with the Dutch embassy and the Belgium embassy in order that these clubs may meet their obligations to the Kamloops club?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, that suggestion is worthy of consideration. However, I would say that past experience with Bunny Ahearne would indicate that I do not have that much influence with him.


GRANT TO SPORT PARTICIPATION CANADA- INVESTIGATION OF ABUSES IN AMATEUR HOCKEY
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, will the minister advise the House whether the government has made a grant of $350,000 to Sport Participation Canada, as indicated in the press? Will he also advise whether there is an agreement with the provinces to establish a committee to look into abuses prevalent in amateur hockey?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, if I may deal with the latter question first, yes, the provinces have agreed with the federal government to have their officials meet with our own over the course of the next four or five weeks to make recommendations as to what joint action can be taken to deal constructively with many of these abuses in hockey.
As to the hon. member's first question, yes, we have made an initial grant to this body, Which is made up principally of people from the private area, to enable them to raise funds from private sources, to call on the private sector and, through the resources of the media, to stimulate motivation for the holding of Canadian sports events.


Jack Marshall: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister agree to make any further announcements of such importance in the House in order to give members of the opposition an opportunity to respond?


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Labour. Did the minister undertake any type of survey on how other nations handle technological change through the collective bargaining process before Bill C-253 was drafted. If so, was the bill patterned in any way on the experience of any other nation or nations?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have studied the labour laws and codes of all other industrialized nations. In the United States, for instance, we have found that a collective agreement can be opened on any issue at any time if there is normal advance notice. In Canada it is just the opposite.
December 15, 1971


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment and Minister of Fisheries. In view of the statement made by Great Britain's Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that he has accepted the conclusion of several advisory groups that there is no evidence of harm to health from present levels of mercury in food for the average consumer, will the minister step up his own research on mercury in swordfish and renew negotiations with the United States Food and Drug Directorate in the hope that the swordfishing industry may be restored in Atlantic Canada?


Hon. lack Davis (Minister of the Environment and Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, there is no prohibition on the export of swordfish to countries that do not have limits on mercury. The question of levels on this continent is a matter for the food and drug administrations in Canada and the U.S.A.


SELKIRK FISH PLANT-INQUIRY AS TO POSSIBLE CLOSING
Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries. Yesterday he took as notice my question regarding the possibility of the closing of the Selkirk fish plant, which would be contrary to the undertaking he gave previously to this House. I wonder whether he can answer that question now?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the 70-year old fish plant at Selkirk does not meet our standards for inspection. It is being phased out. However, we are hoping to develop new supplies of fish and to have a plant operating at Selkirk in the not too distant future.


Douglas Charles Rowland: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. On June 25, 1970, as recorded at page 8618 of Hansard, the minister said among other things:
My own forecast is that there will be two plants, an old one and a new one. The old one at Selkirk needs to be rehabilitated and this will take place beginning next year. I also expect employment in Selkirk will probably increase and not decrease in so far as fish processing is concerned.
I submit that that definite undertaking has been entirely contravened by what the minister has told the House today. If you think that I have a prima facie case of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I would move that the matter be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member does not have a prima facie case and he may not move the motion.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put to the Postmaster General a question of 24725-35'
Inquiries of the Ministry
which I have given him notice and I think he will be in a position to answer.
Can he tell the House whether officials of his department have been authorized to make purchase proposals to private transport companies now under contract to haul mail? Can he say what offers have been made and what are the intentions of the department in this connection?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, purchase proposals were made to some contractors for their equipment and trucks. This is further to the statement I made in this House on November 23 concerning integration of postal services in 19 large urban centers in the country.


Georges-J. Valade: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Would the minister tell us whether there is a guarantee under these offers that all staff will be integrated into the corporation which is to be established?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, I said in my statement of November 23 that all permanent employees of those contractors would be integrated into the postal service.


BROADCASTING
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State. I asked him three weeks ago whether he was aware of the secular censorship of Sunday church services on radio, particularly in the Toronto area. These broadcasts in many cases are the only means by which our senior citizens, the disabled, the crippled, the blind and those confined to hospitals or homes can participate in religious services of their choice. At that time the minister replied that he would look into this matter and let me know about it. We have now less than two weeks to go before Christmas and a lot of spiritual music is being performed. Can he make a report today?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, as I promised to the hon. member, I have submitted that question to both the CBC and the CRTC. Unfortunately, I did not yet get an answer from-either.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the limited nature of the recently announced $10 million loan program for exhibition buildings in that those loans are available only with respect to class A and class B fairs, will the

December 15, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
minister consider extending this program so that other
communities, smaller communities holding class C fairs, for instance, may be able to take advantage of the loan program?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister might reply briefly, if he wishes, but I would suggest to the hon. member that this is a question which should normally be placed on the order paper. I am not aware that such fairs take place at this time of year. If there is no immediate urgency, I would think the question ought to be placed on the order paper. If there is urgency, it can be considered at the time of adjournment.



SUPPLY AND SERVICES


[Stage Direction]
Mr. ]. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East): My question is addressed to the Minister of Supply and Services, Mr. Speaker. It relates to an announcement made yesterday at a press conference by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that the government of Canada was prepared to buy a mini-submarine being constructed in British Columbia. Can the minister now tell us when an offer is to be made to the company concerned and what is to happen with respect to the 30 per cent of the $2 million price paid to the company by the U.S.S.R.?
Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: The government has agreed to purchase the submarine. I will make inquiries as to the details of the repayment to the U.S.S.R.


Mr. Forrestall:: Can the minister tell us whether action to lift the sales permit was taken only in light of the fact that it was being sold to Russia? Were any other countries involved? Can the minister also tell us which department will be using this mini-submarine?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The second part of the question should be placed on the order paper. The minister might reply briefly to the first part. We are just about out of time. The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate. Is the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East rising on a point of order?


J. Michael Forrestall: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I hesitate to bring to Your Honour's attention the fact that the minister was in the process of rising to respond to the first part of the question.


Mr. Speaker:: I did not notice the minister rising. If he wishes to reply to the first part of the question, the answer should be given quickly.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, you ruled part of the question out of order and I do not know what the first part of the question was.


J. Michael Forrestall: When will the offer be made to purchase the submarine? As of this morning it had not been made to the company involved.


James Armstrong Richardson: The initial payment has already been made to the company. The date of the final payment has not yet been determined.


FISHERIES
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether an agreement has been reached between Canada and Denmark regarding the fisheries resources off the Atlantic coast, and would he be prepared to table the text of the agreement or the diplomatic notes exchanged in arriving at such an agreement?


Mitchell William Sharp: I shall have to make inquiries. There have been negotiations. I am not absolutely sure of their present stage but I will obtain an answer.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Arnold Peters (Temiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. Has the right hon. gentleman any news to give to the country as to the anticipated date of his application for benefits under the Family Allowances Act?


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in the absence of the Minister of Labour, I asked his parliamentary secretary if he was in a position to say whether the Quebec government had taken a decision about the contributions of some categories of employees of that province to the unemployment insurance fund. The parliamentary secretary replied that the minister could answer today. Would the minister now be ready to make this effort?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Here we face the same difficulty as we did with respect to a previous question. I am hoping that at the end of the question period I may be permitted to revert to motions and deal with the question asked by the hon. member for Joliette and the question which has just been raised.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have, in fact, reached the end of the question period. I apologize to hon. members, including some hon. members on the front bench to my left, who have not had an opportunity to put their
December 15, 1971

Inquiries of the Ministry
questions. I have tried to recognize some hon. members in the other rows and I will try to give others who might have been recognized an opportunity tomorrow to ask their questions. There is a request by the Minister of Labour that by unanimous consent we revert to motions to allow him to make the statement to which he has referred. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Before we do that, I recognize the hon. member for Sainte-Marie who wishes to raise a question of privilege.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege at this time because I waited until the question period was over so that I would not delay hon. members who wanted to put questions.
My question of privilege deals with an answer the Prime Minister gave me yesterday when I put a question to him in connection with the problem raised during the question period, and I quote, from page 10453 of Hansard, what he said:
No, Mr. Speaker, there will be no special regulation. The act is known to this House for it was passed by this House. The government intends to announce very soon the regulations under this act. They are clear and known to everyone, including the government of the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, this contradicts the comments made by the Minister of Labour a while ago to the effect that the act contains some ambiguities and that he had to clarify t'-e situation.
I maintain that the Prime Minister gave a false and incorrect answer yesterday and that the minister is again attempting to clarify the problem and enable the province of Quebec to take its own responsibilities. In my opinion, the minister should have been invited to make such a statement at the beginning of-not after-the oral question period.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the right hon. Prime Minister who is entitled, if he so wishes, to reply to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Sainte-Marie, but I am prepared to allow the Prime Minister to do so.
I would, however, remind hon. members that to question an answer given by a minister during the question period does not constitute a question of privilege.
I refer hon. members to Citation 181 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition. I could invoke this citation every day when hon. members rise on a question of privilege in order to question an answer that was given to them. I suggest that what is taking place now is a debate between two hon. members, and the question should not be referred to the Chair under cover of a question of parliamentary privilege.


Mr. Dinsdale:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been endeavouring to catch Your Honour's eye for the past half hour.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I have not had the privilege of asking a question since last Friday and I have an important question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. He has now departed and he will not be here tomorrow. I do not know how to handle the matter. It involves a question of vital importance to institutions in national parks such as the Banff School of Fine Arts. Perhaps I could have Your Honour's permission to present it as notice to the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must say, speaking very honestly, that I am always a bit surprised when I hear hon. members say they have not had an opportunity to ask a very important question on a very important matter. During the question period hon. members are given an opportunity to ask questions, but the purpose of the question period is to seek information. I sincerely feel there must be other ways for members to seek information than to ask a question during the 40 minutes allowed them for the question period. The Chair is in the hands of hon. members. We can continue the question period for a longer time by unanimous consent of the House. Otherwise, when the question period has ended the Chair has no other alternative but to call orders of the day. Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member for Bran-don-Souris to ask his question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. However, I will tell the hon. member that he caught the Speaker's eye. I shall certainly make it my duty to see that he is recognized at the first opportunity and given priority over other members.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The Prime Minister raises a question of privilege.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would not want to complicate your task, Mr. Speaker, but I did not quite understand your ruling. I understood that you allowed me to comment on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member, even though it was not well founded.
I just want to say, if you do not want to allow me to give further explanations, that we are prepared to revert to motions, provided the opposition agrees, to enable the Minister of Labour to read these regulations which-as I was saying yesterday-are clear for everyone. However, the minister must be allowed to move them.


Mr. Maclnnis:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

December 15, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond on a point of order.


Donald MacInnis: We have just had an example of what this government is doing to the rules of this House. I refer once again to the deliberate absence of ministers from the House which removes the urgency from important questions many hon. members on this side wish to put. I also refer to the answer the Prime Minister has just given in response to a question of privilege brought up previously. According to the rules of this House, it is too late now for him to speak to the same question in that he allowed time to elapse and there have been two points of order in between.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Of course I am not going to become involved in this.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, if there was not unanimous consent for the Minister of Labour to revert to motions to make a statement-


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Or was there?


Mr. Speaker:: There was not at that point. However, I am at the service of the House and I will inquire again whether there is unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I object. A few moments ago, when you asked whether there was unanimous agreement, some government members refused to give their consent. I do not see why we should now give ours.


Mr. Speaker:: Obviously, the House is not unanimous. [English]
There is not unanimous consent. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Lotbiniere on a point of order.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, on this point, I should like most humbly to point out that my hon. colleague from Abitibi raised the point before the hon. member for Sainte-Marie and that consequently, according to the Standing Orders, his question should have been put before that of the hon. member for Sainte-Marie. Since attempts made so far to obtain unanimous consent were not in keeping with the Standing Orders and since we insist on obtaining this information we would most humbly ask you to call for unanimous consent again.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I asked, hardly ten seconds ago, I believe, whether there was unanimous consent. The hon. member cannot logically be suggesting that I spend the

whole afternoon calling for unanimous consent. I have done so twice. I will make a third attempt.
Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimity.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, if, as you have ruled, there was not unanimous consent to revert to motions so that the minister could make a statement, I wonder whether there would be unanimous consent to revert to motions so that the minister could at least lay on the table the Order in Council that he was seeking to read?


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to allow the minister to table the document?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. [Translation]


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As recorded on page 10453 of Hansard yesterday, my colleague from Abitibi asked that question of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and the latter assured my colleague and the House that the minister would have the appropriate answer prepared for today. This can be done in one way or another, either on motions or by merely providing the answer. Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We have taken 10 or 15 minutes of the valuable time of the House to ask whether there was unanimous consent about the matter raised by the member for Lotbiniere for the third or fourth time. There is no unanimous consent.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to think at this time, in view of the importance of the statement that the minister wishes to make-I say this with all humility and respect to you-perhaps we could get unanimous consent for the minister to give the statement, primarily because-


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You keep your big mouth shut.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest very kindly to the hon. member for Hamilton West that we have had a number of members suggest that we revert to motions. For this we must have unanimous consent, and each time the Chair has inquired whether there was such consent there has not been unanimity. May we have order, please? I am wondering whether it is conducive to the decorum of the House to continue for a good part of the afternoon by inquiring every two minutes or so, on the initiative of different members, whether there is unanimous consent. I think that is an abuse of the process of this House.
December 15, 1971


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of this matter I would hope there would be some interest in what is going to happen on January 1. The minister has a very important statement to make, that is of vital interest not only to the members of this House but also to the people of Canada who will be taking advantage of this legislation. If we are going to be responsible here and do our duty, I hope that unanimous consent will be given so that we in the opposition parties will have an opportunity to reply to the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members know as well as I do that there has not been unanimous consent. I know which members refused their consent, but I think it would be unfair on my part to suggest who they were. Would the hon. member kindly resume his seat. I shall again inquire whether there is unanimous consent, but I suggest to hon. members it is somewhat ridiculous for hon. members to continue along this line. In a spirit of co-operation with hon. members, because I am here to act on their behalf, I shall inquire once again whether there is unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


Mr. McGrath:: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Since this is a very important matter, I think the record should show that it was the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, who refused unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Mahoney:: I rise on the same question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I think the record should also show I am not the one who has been complaining there has not been enough time to debate the tax bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, December 14, 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 thereto of Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) (p. 10464).
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to get back to the work of the House on Bill C-259, the tax reform bill. We were debating the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) last evening before ten o'clock. Last evening I was commenting on the fact that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Income Tax Act
Stanfield) indicated he really does not understand the bill. I think there is general agreement, at least on this side of the House, that he does not understand the bill. This shows we can get agreement on this side. Many people in Canada understand the effects of this bill. They understand them very well. There will be one million people in this country who will be taken off the tax rolls on January 1 when this bill is proclaimed. They understand the effects of this bill. There are 4.7 million taxpayers in this country who will pay less tax. They understand the effects of the bill well. There are 800,000 working mothers, one in 10 of our work force, who will be able to claim child care allowances when this bill comes into effect. There are provisions for moving allowances, employment allowances and increased exemptions for our old age pensioners. They understand the effects of the bill.
There are increased exemptions from $1,000 to $1,500 for single taxpayers and from $2,000 to $2,850 for married couples. All taxpayers having married status will pay less and all taxpayers having single status who earn up to $8,000 a year will pay less. What the people of this country cannot understand is why the opposition wants to talk this bill to death and wants to continue the debate beyond the end of the year without passing those provisions which would benefit many of our taxpayers. The Leader of the Opposition said that many of his Tory friends who like the old act do not understand the bill. It is curious that these tycoons of the Tory party are willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on newspaper advertisements, such as we have seen during the past few months, to oppose the passage of this bill. I guarantee that anyone who spends the kind of money that the Tory friends have spent during the past couple of months understands the bill. Some of these people understand that the tax-free ride they have had is over.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Brydon Foster: I do not think the Leader of the Opposition is fair to many members in his party when he lumps them in with himself by saying that no one understands the bill. Many members of his party, such as the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie), have spoken well, forcibly, knowledgeably and many times. From observing the activities of the opposition, it seems clear that there is no unity of purpose in their opposition to this bill. The tax bill is a package reform measure designed to bring greater equity into the tax system. To split this legislation as suggested by the Progressive Conservative party would have deferred this feature, perhaps indefinitely.
Some 46 full debating days have been devoted to the bill. It has been widely discussed among businessmen and the public, so surely it is well understood by now. Furthermore, let us not forget that we have seen nine years, four Parliaments and three Prime Ministers since the Carter royal commission began its studies of the tax system in Canada. Arguments have been posed to the effect that provincial governments and the business community would need at least a year before they could prepare for the tax changes but I ask you, how can anybody adjust to these changes until they are actually made; until they exist as law, until they are experienced.

December 15, 1971
Income Tax Act
Surely there can be no doubt that this legislation is in the public interest. The government has repeatedly and emphatically pointed out that it is prepared to take full responsibility for this bill. The government has indicated that there are several areas which are being actively studied and which will require further action in future years. In particular, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has mentioned the representation concerning the deemed realization of a capital gain on gift or bequest of property other than cash to charities and other exempt organizations. He has pointed out that capital gains will accrue very slowly after the start of the new system and that amendments made within a year should be quite satisfactory in that regard.
I am especially interested in this matter because I have received representations from several groups and organizations. I believe a change will be needed in the future. However, when we look at the mess that has developed in the United States, and I understand that a bill one-fifth the thickness of Bill C-259 was required to' correct the unfair advantage people took of the capital gains provision in that country, we must move cautiously. No organization is going to be affected by this for at least the first year or so. When we make a change in this regard, we should do it carefully in order to avoid the pitfalls which have developed in the United States. The minister also indicated that the deferred profit-sharing plan and passive income provisions will require further action in the future. What we are saying is that to amend the entire Income Tax Act is an on going process, although this bill represents the most massive change that has ever taken place in our income tax law.
Let us concentrate on the measures which are going to have a much more immediate and pronounced effect on the Canadian people. Members are well aware that with this legislation one million low income persons will be taken off the tax rolls and that 4.7 million more Canadians will have their taxes reduced. Focusing on the individual aspects, we see increased exemption for single persons from $1,000 to $1,500 and for married persons from $2,000 to $2,850. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians 65 and over will get tax relief through the new $650 exemption and removal of the guaranteed income supplement from taxation. There are now 1.7 million old age pensioners in Canada and a substantial number of those will pay less tax because of the provisions of this bill. Among the many advantages to the individual, is the $500 deduction for child care expenses and the deduction of up to 3 per cent of income for employment expenses. This child care benefit is not limited to low income families only, but will be available to any family if the wife chooses to work either to supplement the family income or to pursue a career.
Deductions for medical expenses will be broadened to include care in institutions for the physically or mentally handicapped and equipment or devices prescribed by a doctor. In respect of deductible gifts to charity, the allowance is to be increased from 10 per cent to 20 per cent of the taxpayer's income. One of the government's objectives in this tax reform bill was to make a serious attempt to recognize the growing mobility of Canadians and their

changing patterns of daily life. The expense of moving from one job to another or the expenses of a student, upon graduating from university, in moving from the college to a new job will be deductible under this bill. These moving expenses will include a wide range of costs including travel, transport or storage of household goods, the cost of meals and lodging for 15 days or less, and the cost of cancelling a lease or selling a home.
Let us now look at some of the more controversial issues in Bill C-259. What about the concessions given to co-ops, credit unions and caisses populaires? The government has actively communicated with these institutions and has come up with a satisfactory approach to their problems. The capital employed concept has been abandoned and co-operatives will no longer be taxed on income from business with members, which is distributed to members in the form of patronage refunds. The limit of deductibility from patronage dividends therefore has been removed. In its place, the government has proposed a 15 per cent withholding tax on patronage dividends in excess of $100 paid to a member in any year. This tax of course would be refundable to the extent that it exceeded a taxpayer's tax liability.
This new approach will have the following results. Recipients of patronage dividends will be treated as before. If the patronage dividend relates to the recipient's business, it will be included in his income for tax purposes. In other circumstances, it will not be taxed. The withholding of tax by the co-operative will permit the government to administer the system efficiently and yet obtain the appropriate result depending on the character of the patronage dividend in the hands of the recipient. This change will provide substantial relief to co-operatives concerned about their treatment under the new act.
In 1970, there were 2,469 co-operatives in Canada constituting a total membership of 1,690,000. I am sure all hon. members on all sides of the House have received many representations from the local co-operatives in their constituencies. The government has introduced an amendment, the effect of which will be to tax the income of a credit union or caisse populaire at the rate of 25 per cent so long as the reserves in excess of those allowed against income do not exceed 5 per cent of deposits and share capital. This will be accomplished by an adjustment of the small business deduction. This special right to use an effective corporate tax rate of 25 per cent might not in itself be sufficient for small credit unions or caisses populaires which would need a reserve in excess of 5 per cent for financial stability. Accordingly, the small business deduction available to other corporations will continue to apply so that a credit union or caisse populaire can build up $300,000 of reserves out of income taxed at 25 per cent whether or not such reserves exceed 5 per cent of deposits and share capital. The government believes that in this way credit unions and caisses populaires will be able to obtain the appropriate entitlement to the small business deduction, and thereby enjoy the benefit of a 25 per cent rate of tax on an appropriate amount of income. This amendment will affect 5,655,902 members in 4,417 credit unions across Canada.
On the subject of capital gain, surely it is clear that such a tax is needed both because it is fair that a levy should be placed on this income and because the extra revenue will
December 15, 1971

be needed to offset the loss of income from tax reductions in the lower income brackets. However, any gain realized by a taxpayer in selling his home and any gain realized on an item of personal property valued under $1,000 will be exempt. It does not seem too much to ask an individual or a corporation to include one half of capital gains in his income to be taxed at the respective rate, considering all the logical exemptions and concessions which have been made in this regard along with the provision for capital loss deduction. This tax is in effect in every other major western country, and the majority of Canadian people have already expressed their affirmative support on the issue.
Another area of major concern in this bill is the mining industry. We in Canada are well aware of the major contribution that is made by this industry to our national economy. Although the kinds of incentives which have existed in the past are to be changed in the new bill, there are still incentives to ensure that this industry will continue to make its full contribution to our economy. We only have to look back to 1945 and compare the value of the mining industry at that time, when the output was some $500 million as compared with 1970 when it was $5.8 billion, to realize the growth that has taken place. It is expected that this industry will continue to grow and will double in the next ten years. This industry accounts for one-third of Canada's merchandized exports and this takes on added significance because the Canadian economy as a whole is greatly dependent on export trade, as we have learned during these past several months when the United States government imposed a 10 per cent surcharge. Fortunately, this surcharge was not directed primarily at our mineral industry which accounts for 7 per cent of the gross national product.
The proposals which are made in this bill are to continue the automatic percentage depletion allowance until 1976 and then replace it by an earned depletion system. This is done with a view to encouraging companies to continue mining exploration and development. The present three-year tax exemption for new mines will be withdrawn under this bill after 1973, but will be replaced by a system of fast write-offs on assets related to new mines, for example, mining buildings, machinery, equipment and town site facilities. It is also proposed that a federal tax on mining profits be reduced to 25 per cent from the present 40 per cent in 1977 to allow for provincial mining taxes.
Small business will continue to receive special incentives with a low corporation tax of 25 per cent on their first $50,000 of profit. This will be available to Canadian controlled corporations to assist them to grow and create more jobs in our economy. This is actually a $15,000 increase in the allowance on a reduced tax rate from the present tax law of $35,000. Most small businessmen that I have talked with believe that this provision is a most reasonable one.
So, I believe that the course before us this week is to approve this bill in its present form after these many months of continuing debate. The bill represents a balanced attempt to reform our tax system. It provides a capital gains tax at a reduced rate to close many loopholes in the existing tax law and provides a stimulus and incentives to our industries to grow fast enough to produce the 1.4 million jobs that we will require between now and 1975
Income Tax Act
for our young people entering the labour market. And most of all, it makes provision to give added exemptions to our old age pensioners whom we must provide for in the best possible way.
This bill has reached this stage following one of the most immense consultative processes that has ever been carried out in Canada, from the Royal Commission on Taxation, the Carter Commission, the white paper, further consultations with provincial governments, business, industry and ordinary citizens, to parliamentary committees, one of them travelling across the country. During the past summer our tax experts [DOT] throughout Canada have had a full two months to study the legislation in detail, and there has been three months of parliamentary debate. The time has come for this Parliament to make a decision and for the representatives of the people of Canada to stand in their place for or against this bill. I intend to stand in my place for the bill.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to take part in the debate, particularly because of the motion that was submitted by my friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). However, what concerns me is that I have heard it said time and time again by members on the other side regarding our involvement in this debate that they do not appreciate the role of the opposition on this important matter. I have said continually that it seems to me that members on the other side believe they are the masters of this House and that we are supposed to do as they say. Lately, we have been called the useless backbenchers. It would be well for the members on the other side to be reminded of our role, particularly when it comes to a bill of this magnitude, a bill that supposedly sets the course of Canada's destiny and economic growth. I say "supposedly" because we find that the bill is full of imperfections, and it is our role to give constructive criticism.
Members on the other side have asked on several occasions why we do not submit something and why we do not give them the benefit of our ideas. We know as well as they do that every time we attempt to be constructive with our amendments we are treated with disdain and disregard. This happens not only in the House but in committee of the whole and happened as well in the committee which studied these provisions. I take a very dim view of that, and I resent it when members on the other side tell us continually that we are not submitting reasoned amendments. We are doing so. The government, in its wisdom, believes that we are incompetent and that all of the wisdom in the House is on the other side. Our role is also to make the government behave, and that is becoming extremely difficult these days when we see the arrogance and flippancy coming from the other side.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: What is very important, particularly with respect to this bill, is that we are the watchdogs of the people's interests, and I have said this on a number of occasions. This is our mandate, this is what we have to do. It is not a case of filibustering, it is an attempt to shed
10498

December 15, 1971
Income Tax Act
light, an attempt to be constructive and an attempt to give the House the benefit of our wisdom. I always say that this is done for the Canadian people, not for myself, not for my party, not for the opposition and not for the Liberals. It would be well for members on the other side to read Sir Kenneth Wheare on the role of the opposition. I was pleased to note that the hon. member who just preceded me was at least relevant. Yesterday we heard the maniacal ravings of several members whose comments were meaningless and irrelevant. They spoke just to berate the opposition and to harass us, and they were supported by asinine interjections from their gleeful but immature supporters.
I am interested in the motion put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre because it affects some five million people. This is where the action is. This is what the Senate Committee on Poverty is all about- five million people who are worried about the steady decrease in the value of the dollar. They are concerned about the cost of living which is continually rising, and all of this when we have a gross national product of $90 billion. Sometimes I wonder why we continue this debate because we have been told-and this is becoming a classical joke around here-that some lawyers would like this bill to be passed immediately because they have found some 145 loopholes in it.
I am interested in the proposal made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre because what he is really talking about is taxing wealth. In his submissions he tried to impress the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mahoney) as well as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) himself and all his colleagues on the other side that what we are doing right now is living in the 1920's because, as was pointed out so admirably yesterday-and it was the first time that I heard this brought to the attention of the House-in the late 1920's the exemption for single persons was $1,200 and for married people it was $2,400. Here we are on December 15, 1971 and the exemptions for single persons amount to $1,500 and for married people they are $2,850. What progress is that? It is ridiculous. It is utter nonsense. That is why I believe that there is great merit in the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
The motion of the hon. member amends section 117 (1) which, in effect, says that a person who has a taxable income of $500 will pay 17 per cent. What I find so attractive in the motion is that it would take $75 off a person's tax; in other words, he would be paying $10 in tax. Then, it is stated throughout paragraphs (b) to (m) that $75 will be taken off the immediate figure relating to the tax payable in the first instance without the percentage. What it really means is a $75 across the board decrease in taxes. What is important is that it affects those who are most in need. This is why I find this system more attractive than the system which the parliamentary secretary praises so highly, that is the deductions system.
Deductions, with all their merit, do not improve the position of those in the lower income brackets. The parliamentary secretary is interested in the scheme because, if I read Hansard correctly, he says that Carter himself would have liked a system of deductions together with a tax credit scheme. If I am wrong, the parliamentary secretary will correct me, but let him check Hansard. Even Carter

found merit in the system. This is why I am interested in this motion. It is a legitimate, sincere attempt to alleviate the suffering of some 5 million people who, because of numerous factors and I do not need to repeat them, are living on or below the poverty line. It would give them some relief. It would also stimulate the economy because of the amount of tax cut involved. But more than that, it is a fair method to approach this very controversial subject. You have it right across the board.
We are legislators, Mr. Speaker, and we are human. Some people may not really believe that we are human. Although perfection is rarely a human quality, one would expect that when a government introduced legislation of the magnitude of this bill, breaking new ground, the bill would be about as perfect as possible. Mr. Speaker, this monstrosity is far from perfect, as the government well knows. This fact is proven by the several amendments it has produced for our consideration and, what is even more astounding, by the announcements that amendments affecting vital portions of it are to be brought in after the bill is passed. This is where I take issue with the government. The government tells us, "Pass the bill and restore confidence in the economy." I ask myself how is this possible? If the minister is going to introduce significant amendments subsequent to the passage of the bill, how in heaven's name can any one know how to face the future? Yet the government has the unmitigated gall to continue to tell us to pass the bill, and that everything will be all right. As my hon. friend from Kent-Essex says, "Pass now and change later." This is a ridiculous approach.
In its arrogance, the government introduced closure. I don't care if anyone wants to call it time allocation. I think that is the wrong expression. It is closure, plain and simple. So far as I am concerned, we did not have the opportunity to discuss this bill in the way that it should have been discussed. We know that a vast number of sections have not been perused by Members of Parliament. I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mahoney) smiling-


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Why don't you talk about them instead of bellyaching?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: -in his usual, genial way. But after that I am afraid I will have to continue to tell him to please be respectful when the hon. member for Hamilton West is speaking. That is as nice a way as I can put it, without having to tell him to shut his mouth, as I did earlier. This was a disgraceful statement for me to make and I apologize for being carried away.
At a time when we should be dealing with legislation that would ensure economic growth, full employment, confidence in the economy, and appreciation of the United States' position regarding its domestic problems, we are called upon to deal with a bill that seemingly ignores all of these things. Such an attitude, which is dangerous and irresponsible, is not acceptable on this side of the House because, primarily, the Canadian people expect and demand more maturity. Such an attitude borders on insanity, and raises doubts about the ability of the government to deal with a matter of such magnitude. The
December 15, 1971

Minister of Finance has urged that we push this bill through because at least many of the sections will not come into effect until 1976. He has also said that none of the important changes come into effect until 1973. Then I ask, what the heck is all the rush about? If many of these sections do not come into force until 1976, and if none of the important changes come into effect until 1973, why all the rush? It is political expediency. That is the reason.
Why not accept the sensible, responsible and reasonable alternative put forward by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), which would solve the problem? Members of the government contend that confidence cannot be built up in the economy if the whole nation is going to be hung up wondering what the government is going to do. Their philosophy is trial by error. They say, "Let us try it. If it is an error, we will fix it up." Mr. Speaker, that is no good. As the Leader of the Opposition said, we need time to study and debate the more incomprehensible sections of this monstrosity of imperfection. I would like to emphasize that the bill is a monstrosity of imperfection, and to realize that one only needed to listen to the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) read one little subclause which took him about three minutes to read. I doubt if any member of the House understood it as he was reading it, or would be able to understand it even after studying it for an hour or two hours. It is no wonder that tax lawyers say they have already discovered 141 loopholes in the bill. And, Mr. Speaker, they have just started to study it. Why the rush?


Mr. Kaplan:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: There will be no questions from that side and no answers from this side because of the irresponsible attitude you people took this afternoon.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: We want to discuss the bill. We haven't much time, Let's talk about the bill.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You are testing my patience. Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has a loveable character, but he is testing my patience.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: There is a little too much arrogance from that quarter.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: This bill is beyond the immediate mental digestive system not only of Members of Parliament but also of tax accountants, lawyers, businessmen, and all those whom the bill directly affects, namely, the Canadian people. But the government is determined to ram the bill down our throats in the same manner as Christmas turkeys are being force fed for the holiday table. It is a shame, Mr. Speaker.
What could happen if the manufacturers of airplanes and motor vehicles accepted this imperfection theory? We owe them undying gratitude for the fact they do not take that view. What would happen if they hurried something into production knowing it was imperfect? Such an attitude is unacceptable, dangerous and irresponsible. Yet that is the attitude the government wants opposition parties to accept. The government wants us to pass something that is imperfect, something that is dangerous, something that is unknown, the end result of which is beyond anyone's comprehension. Then the government
Income Tax Act
says, "When we have tested it out on the Canadian people"-it is a terrible thing to use the Canadian people as guinea pigs-"we will see just what we can do in order to alleviate their suffering." The government says, "Damn the consequences; pass the bill; let the Canadian people be the guinea pigs."
The other day the Minister of Finance said:
The only way imperfections in this legislation will come to light is through the actual experience of taxpayers and their advisers reading and using the new act in relation to particular transactions and situations.
That is a terrible thing to tell the Canadian people. I know we are not perfect because we are human but, as I said earlier, the Canadian people expect the government to bring in something more nearly perfect than this. The proof is in the pudding. I forget how many amendments the government has already introduced. I think there were 135, and members opposite can check me if I am wrong. How many more amendments will we get in January? How many more amendments will the other place bring in, if, in fact, it is allowed to bring in any? What nonsense is this, Mr. Speaker? The government says we do not have to be concerned about many of these sections until 1976, and that we do not have to be bothered with many of the important ones until 1973. The theme of my presentation this afternoon is to ask why the rush, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Haidasz:: Lower the taxes as of January 1, 1972.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: If the Liberal government were really concerned about the deleterious effects of poverty, they would not have removed the cost of living escalator clause from the Old Age Security Act last winter. They would have inserted an escalator clause in such legislation as unemployment insurance and FISP, and they would have made allowances for an inflationary upswing to be reflected in personal tax exemptions. The government profits by inflation; poor people lose. At no time has the Liberal government seriously tried to right that imbalance and they are not doing it now. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is trying to correct that imbalance. The government says something about getting the bill passed so that we can give the poor people a break. If a man on the poverty line gets an $8 break that does not help much when he is facing inflation and the high cost of living with the reduced value of the dollar. But the government goes around spreading that false propaganda.
Reuben Baetz pointed out to the annual meeting of the Canadian Council on Social Development recently that:
An unfair taxation system can give to the poor with one hand through transfer payments, and take away from their already inadequate income with the other.
The present tax reform bill does not remove the unfairness to which Mr. Baetz refers. I like this amendment because it shows some credible movement by the opposition to correct the situation. We still have people being forced to pay tax on incomes well below the generally accepted standards. If we are going to beat this problem of poverty, surely we have to be more credible than this government is attempting to be. What progress is there in having exemptions of $1,500 single and $2,850 married in
24725-36!

December 15, 1971
Income Tax Act
1971	when we had the same thing in 1920? It is a retrograde step. The renegade report on poverty has said that 54 per cent of the income of poor people goes in payment of taxes, direct and indirect. When social security contributions are included it becomes 60 per cent of income. By comparison, those with incomes over $10,000 pay only between 37 and 38 per cent of their income in those same taxes. The tax reform bill does not even begin to remedy these anomalies.
There are a lot of good things in this bill but the government wants to railroad it through. They have talked about 50 days of debate but surely, Mr. Speaker, we are going to have to answer for this imperfect piece of legislation in another five or six months. I do not understand the rush when at the same time the United States is injuriously affecting us by the monetary policy to which we do not have the answer.


Mr. Gillespie:: Slow down.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is the Minister of Science and Technology (Mr. Gillespie). It is amazing how these ministers suddenly become experts. Something tells me that when the plug is pulled a lot of my friends over there will not be back.


Mr. Lefebvre:: Don't look at me!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Your greatest contribution has already been made. These basic exemptions which are raised from $1,000 to $1,500 for a single person and to $2,850 for a married couple do absolutely nothing for the taxpayer.


An hon. Member:: Speak up, I can't hear you.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Let me read the balance of this, Mr. Speaker. I only have three or four minutes left and in this way I will be able to put my remarks on the record. These exemptions will not even give the poor the same benefits from personal income tax exemptions that they had in 1949, for inflation has eroded more than the extra dollars they have been granted as tax exemptions in the intervening years. If the personal exemptions had been increased solely to match the increase in the consumer price index since 1969, personal exemptions would now stand at over $1,700 for a single person and more than $3,400 for a married couple. Through these changed exemptions, then, the position of the poor will not even be restored to its 1949 state, let alone be improved.
The erosion of the benefits of personal income tax exemptions through inflation has been pointed out frequently. I have often listened to members of the government and I quote the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Kaplan) who on June 22, 1971 said:
-the government has done everything it can in the way of tax reform with respect to poverty-What we have done is to assure that virtually no one who can be described as being in a condition of poverty has to pay income tax.
It does not take much knowledge of poverty in Canada to realize that these claims are completely erroneous. The income tax exemptions that are to become effective in
1972	do not even reach the Economic Council of Canada's poverty line for 1969. To see this, it is only necessary to turn to Table 5 of the Summary of 1971 Tax Reform Legislation: a family of four with an income of less than

$4,420 is just under the 1969 poverty line, yet a family of four with an income of just $4,000 in 1972 will pay $73 in tax. Now, we are talking about poor people. The new exemption levels are also below many social assistance standards.
I could go on and on but I shall conclude by saying that we all want tax reform which does not stifle a person's initiative and does not stifle economic growth. In this bill we do not have it. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has proposed a motion that would give some credible alternative with which to attack poverty-perhaps a person with a taxable income would pay $10 on $5,000 rather than $85. Surely, all men with sincerity and concern in their hearts can support this as I do not have any hesitation in supporting the motion of my friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


THE ROYAL ASSENT
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received the following communication:


GOVERNMENT HOUSE CANADA
[Stage Direction]
15 December 1971
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable W. F. Spence, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 15th day of December, at 5:45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
I have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient servant,
Louis Fremont Trudeau Brigadier General Assistant Secretary to the Governor General

[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 thereto of Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) p. 10464.
Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, there should not be anyone in this House who is not prepared to
December 15, 1971

accept the amendment introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). It was a pleasure to listen to the speech of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), and I think the points he made were of concern to everyone in this country. I am sure that everybody is concerned about reducing the burden of taxation of low income Canadians. In many cases it appears that this government is only interested in saying "Merry Christmas" to them and forgetting about the consequences which may flow from the measure. I think it would like to regard low income Canadians as invisible citizens, so that it would not have to recognize their problems.
Yesterday was a banner day in the House of Commons. The hon. member for York Simcoe (Mr. Roberts) stood in his place and cried about the type of reporting carried on by the various newspapers across the country. The Globe and Mail for December 13 carries this report about what the hon. member for York Simcoe said at Thunder Bay:
Mr. Roberts recalled the long wrangle over tax reform that culminated last week in passage of the new tax legislation under closure, and said that it does not represent real tax reform at all. He said the Government has no concept of what sort of economy or industrial base it wants 10 years from now, and without that larger picture, real reform is not possible.
He said the same thing applies to the Competition Act and the development of policy on foreign investment.
I think that journalists should investigate to ascertain if these statements appearing in the Globe and Mail were actually uttered. Were these statements appearing under the by-line of Globe and Mail reporter, John Slinger, actually made at Thunder Bay, because I cannot disagree with the hon. member opposite in any way. I was surprised yesterday to see the hon. member stand up in the House and cry for about 15 minutes over something that was reported in the press. As a rule, when people spend that much time crying over something appearing in the press, there is more truth than fiction in the press report. It was most unfortunate seeing the hon. member crying and the blood running all over the nice green carpet. Somewhere, somebody must have gored him. Possibly he is a little worried about his present position as, parliamentary secretary.
The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would mean, if accepted, that people with taxable incomes of $500 would pay about $10 in income tax, as opposed to the $85 that they will pay under the government's proposal. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mahoney) will be reasonable. If this amendment is accepted, many people in his constituency will be affected. If the House accepts this amendment, we shall not need to debate it any further and we could move on to more important items. Perhaps the government will wish to introduce some more amendments. If the parliamentary secretary will announce that the government will accept this amendment, we could dispose of this item and go on to debate something else.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker-


Steve Eugene Paproski: He is going to accept; he is going to accept.
Income Tax Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance rises on a point of order.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member would like to indicate the additional amendment he has in mind that would be more important than the one before the House now involving a half million dollar revenue reduction.


John Leroy Skoberg: Are the many thousands of people in Canada who would be affected not important? Remember, the government would be doing this just before Christmas. We, on this side of the House, think that the amendment, if accepted, would bring about true reductions in the taxes of taxpayers. This would be a progressive measure. The income tax law would become more progressive. People earning lower incomes would pay less tax, no matter which way you look at it.
I admit that there are certain areas the parliamentary secretary is prepared to look at; I give him due credit for that, and for looking at one area which I shall mention shortly. However, unless he gives consideration to people who most urgently need it, he will be merely playing the big money game. So far, little consideration has been given in this taxation proposal to some people. I am sure that there is no need for me to expand further on the points which have been ably made by my colleague for Winnipeg North Centre as well as by other members who have spoken about this type of tax reform. Many of us agree that the present system really will not bring about tax reform. We suggest that laws and regulations must be framed to protect the individual, and our aim should be to bring about equity in taxation. The parliamentary secretary believes in playing with words and figures, as if that will bring about equity in taxation. Many of us do not think it will bring about reform.
An hon. member yesterday or the day before talked about the need for interpretive regulations. Yesterday, as well, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that a decision on foreign ownership was in the making or available, and that the government would introduce a policy in this regard. If the cabinet has made such a decision, it certainly has not been made public. We heard hon. members opposite talking about interpretive regulations. They would be, so to speak, the rules of the game, because without such interpretive regulations the vast number of pages of the bill before us would mean absolutely nothing. So far as I am aware, those interpretive regulations have not been introduced.
If one looks at the transcript of the hearings of the Banking, Trade and Commerce Committee of the other place, one will see that over there they have been able to get to the Minister of Finance so to speak and do a little horse-trading. If the people of Canada had realized that this type of horse-trading had taken place, possibly they would have asked the other place to give consideration to special items that the people may wish to see passed. According to the transcript of the December 13 hearing of the Banking, Trade and Commerce Committee of the other place, the Minister of Finance, after squirming somewhat, finally had to admit that the government contemplated bringing in further amendments after the beginning of the new year and that these would meet

December 15, 1971
Income Tax Act
some of the concerns of certain people. However, on examining more closely the December 13 transcript, I wonder whether any really worth-while and meaningful debate has gone on in the other place on this subject. Have the concerns of people on the subject of tax reform really been considered? Also, it will be interesting to see whether the debate in the other place after Friday lasts one day, or perhaps two days. Really, this is just a variation of the old horse-trading game. The minister is playing Russian roulette. He is holding a revolver, and one chamber is loaded. I think he is wondering whether he should pull the trigger and risk firing the gun. It will be strange to see what happens over there.
I agree that we can accept many parts of this bill. Naturally, there have been improvements in many areas. Nevertheless, the people I have heard from and people who have written letters still think that the public has not been adequately informed of the nature of the bill. Many do not know of the adverse effects it will have upon the individual, upon groups and on corporations. Since the government has decided to use closure, the public will never know the truth about the bill until it is too late. A credible government knows that it must be concerned about the public. The people ought to have the opportunity of knowing what the bill is all about and, in particular, what the amendments to the bill are all about. These amendments go to the very guts of the bill. Unfortunately, the public has not been adequately informed about the effects of many areas of this bill.
The people ought to have been informed, but they have not been. At the very time when this nation could be and should be one of the richest nations in the world, and when it is in a position to provide for decent living standards for all in Canada, the government has refused to recognize that basic exemptions ought to be increased and that the tax credit system ought to be adopted. My colleague from Winnipeg North Centre spoke on this yesterday. The average taxpayer is chiefly concerned about certain real, practical problems, and these are the areas to which I should like to refer briefly this afternoon. It is in this connection, I believe, that the government should have acknowledged there was a reasonable basis to the arguments put forward from this side of the House and that there was certainly room for improvement. For example, the bill still allows for only $150 or 3 per cent of a taxpayer's aggregate income with respect to tools used in the course of employment, and so on. Naturally, I shall not attempt to discuss the various sections in detail on third reading. But surely the government could have raised the allowance to $500 at least. We all know that $150 is a mere token. At one time I thought we had succeeded in getting through to the parliamentary secretary-that we had been able to impress on him the importance of making the allowance $500 instead of the measly token figure which has been adopted.
.10 p.m.)
I would be remiss if I did not congratulate the parliamentary secretary and those responsible in the department for amending the bill so as to make better provision for certain railway employees whose work takes them away from their homes or home terminals. Those affected will be very pleased to know that this amendment has

been brought in and accepted, particularly since they have not enjoyed the benefit of any remission of taxation in this area whereas other people in similar situations have. The point has been a most contentious one for many years and again I congratulate the minister, the parliamentary secretary and his officials for bringing in this amendment, at least.
We sought to impress upon the government that there were still many people who did not receive the benefits of tax exemptions to which they are really entitled. They include carpenters, repair men and virtually all those who are obliged to travel long distances to obtain or retain employment. Whatever may have been the case in the past, the fact is that today a great many people have no choice but to travel long distances to obtain employment or keep the employment they have, due to seniority clauses and so on. The parliamentary secretary suggested that the collective bargaining approach might be used to place these people in a more equitable position. He said the fact that people lived miles outside a city and had to drive long distances to work did not mean their transportation costs should be allowed as deductible expenses. The hon. gentleman failed to realize that today large numbers of people have no idea how long a particular job will last. They cannot rely upon employment being available to them at the same place week after week. Does he consider that they should pack up and move every time they obtain new employment so as to be near their place of work? The whole subject of the mobility of labour, and mobility grants under certain conditions, would need to be re-examined. We in this party suggested that the type of transportation costs to which I have referred should be allowable for deduction, certain safeguards having been provided. And I am sure regulations could be devised so as to prevent a misuse of this concession, though I recognize this must be one of the aspects about which the government is concerned.
When we are considering the subject of allowable expenses, we ought not to overlook the important part played by individual taxation offices across Canada. The trouble is there is no set standard as far as these offices are concerned. To support this contention I need do no more than quote briefly from a letter which my hon. friend from Temiskaming (Mr. Peters) has received from Capreol. The letter points out that in the Capreol area a flat arbitrary maximum allowable rate of $1.75 per meal has been set by the local taxation office. This rate per meal has been in effect for several years without regard to the substantial increase which has taken place in the cost of living. The writer of this letter goes on to say:
It is an established fact that the total increased cost of living in the north with respect to housing, fuel, food, clothing, etc. is greater than it is elsewhere. This total extra cost is reflected in the price of food purchases and restaurant meals at away from home terminals. Merchants and restaurateurs in the north of necessity base their prices on these total higher costs, not merely on the higher food prices.
The situation would not be so bad were it not for the fact that the Department of National Revenue invariably uses a double standard when assessing allowable deductions for meals. Invariably one rate is set for business people or executive types and another for the men in overalls. I am pleased to note that provision is now being made for exemptions of this type affecting broader
December 15, 1971

classes of taxpayers. However, the fact remains that it is necessary to bring the district taxation offices into the picture, instructing them to set a basic rate which is at least an acceptable one, and abandon the double standard which they have been using in the past.
Another point on which a good deal of concern has been expressed relates to severance pay and its treatment by taxation officers. I raised this matter in the House, and the parliamentary secretary was good enough to acknowledge it, as reported at page 9217 of Hansard. He said, and rightly so:
Ordinarily severance pay is regarded as income under the Income Tax Act, and as such should be included in the computation of income. I am aware that in certain cases special regulations or legislation have been passed, but under the general income tax law this is regarded as income from an employment and is therefore included as taxable income in the year in which it was received.
There is probably no room for argument as to the interpretation which the parliamentary secretary placed on this section of the act. At the same time, he did admit that certain regulations have been passed which take care of certain of the difficulties which arise in its administration. I suggest to the parliamentary secretary that he let the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) know that thousands of people across this land today are being subjected to the worst type of discrimination as far as severance pay is concerned. They are people who have built up some type of nest egg, whether as a result of negotiation or as a matter of arrangement between themselves and their employers, in the belief that it would provide them with funds for retraining, if that should become necessary, or at least for enabling them to live until they can get back again into employment. Unfortunately, the parliamentary secretary may not be able to convince the minister that severance pay should not be regarded as earnings-that it should be considered, really, not as a deferred wage, but as a pension. Right now, people are using up their severance pay before they can draw one nickel in unemployment insurance benefit. Many go for a year or more without the benefit of the unemployment insurance payments to which they are really entitled.
I should like to conclude by saying all of us in this corner of the House believe that the amendment put forward by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre is a realistic one. It is not an idealistic proposal, but a realistic effort to bring about a needed reform. Tax credits can be used to the benefit of the people of this nation. They can be used 'in such a way as to ensure a more equitable distribution of wealth, a more equitable system of taxation. I believe that if the government would really live up to what it believed to be right, deep down, and not merely listen to what the economists say, they would accept the amendment, because it is a just one, intended to bring about genuine reform instead of merely following the old rhetoric we have heard so often.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, it is a most happy occasion for me to participate in the debate with such a genial audience across the way. I am happy to take part in the discussion in this final stage as we enter third reading, partly because, as a member of the finance committee, I have been involved in this exercise right from the begin-
Income Tax Act
ning. I should like formally to record my views with respect to two members who served on the committee, two members that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) singled out when he introduced the debate on third reading. He referred to the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Clermont), who was chairman of our committee, a man whose patience, judgment, stamina, and above all good sense, carried us through a difficult, complicated and lengthy process. The other member he singled out was his own parliamentary secretary-not unnaturally-the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: The hon. member for Calgary South, as those of us who have participated in this debate since September will recognize, has carried this difficult, complicated bill through the House with considerable ability. What I should like to deal with in my remarks this evening are some of the things that are being said by members of the opposition. The hon. rnember for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) presented what has become or is becoming one of the major tactical positions taken by the opposition. The question he posed was: Why the rush?
In dealing with this question, I should like briefly to review some of the tactics opposition critics have used over the course of this lengthy process, one which started in this House of Commons over two years ago. For those who want to carry it back beyond that period outside of Parliament, it was nine years ago when the Carter commission was formed. However, I want to deal in my remarks only with the process as it relates to the House of Commons itself. I think we should recognize the tactics of the opposition for what they are. They have changed a number of times over the course of this two-year process, and it might be worth examining and considering them, and perhaps exposing them for what they are. The first tactic seemed to be, as I reflected on the record and consulted my notes, one of confusing the public, of suggesting that the white paper was a bill. The tactic was to get people to write in saying "Withdraw the bill". They were speaking of the white paper as if it were a bill.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), perhaps inadvertently, contributed to my mind to this particular suspicion. He said "Withdraw the white paper". At the same time I am happy to note that his chief financial critic, who was a hard working member of the committee, was not so taken in: he recognized that the white paper was a white paper, and that the process of white paper discussion was to put it out to the public and to listen to the views of the public and of others. But the initial basic ploy was to suggest that this was the fixed position of the government on tax reform, that in effect it was a draft bill that was unlikely to be changed in any important detail.
That was the position of the Conservative opposition for most of early 1970 and mid-1970. Then the tactic changed, perhaps partly because of the leadership given by their chief financial critic, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). He recognized the white paper as a process-perhaps not immediately; he was a little slow on the uptake, but he was very fast for the chief financial critic. It seemed to me that he then started to push the idea that

December 15, 1971
Income Tax Act
the government was going to try to ram this thing through. Getting away from the confusion tactic we now get to the ramming through tactic. His leader picked this one up, and I think one might say that his leader has preempted the ram. I think we might describe it as the Stanfield ram.
I shall have more to say about the Stanfield ram, but over and over again we have been hearing this expression about the government trying to ram things through. ,1 remember the hon. member for Edmonton West saying on one occasion to the committee, when the committee decided that it was time to bring its hearings to some sort of orderly close, that we were trying to ram things through. The hon. member will remember that we started our meetings early in the year. The Minister of Finance appeared before the committee, as I recall it, on January 15. He again started to accuse the committee of ramming something through when we decided that the public hearings before the committee should terminate early in July.


Mr. Danforth:: When the government decided, not the committee.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: The message came through.


Alastair William Gillespie: That was the tactic, but it was a false tactic. Let us look at the record for a moment. I know many hon. members have made this point, but I think it is worth making again.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the minister, mainly because I should have said this while the hon. member for Moose Jaw was speaking, but I think I should invite hon. members who are participating or who will participate in the debate to read the remarks in Hansard of Mr. Speaker while he was in the Chair yesterday, as reported at pages 10470, 10471, 10472 and 10473, at which time he invited hon. members to confine their remarks as closely as possible to the amendment that is before the House at this time.
I am sure all hon. members will agree with me when I say that the rule of relevancy has not been closely applied by the Chair either in the House or in committee during this debate. But we have now reached third reading, having already had a two hour general debate on the motion. An amendment has been voted on and there is now before the House another amendment. If hon. members are going to reopen the general debate on the bill every time an amendment is moved, this will make it very difficult for the Chair to apply the rule of relevancy. Since I did not bring this point to the attention of other members when they went beyond the scope of the bill the Chair does not want to be unfair to the minister, but I do think that my remarks should be taken as an invitation to be relevant.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, in your own inimitable way you have put the point gently and forcefully and I, of course respect your direction in this regard. Because I had not fully developed my remarks, perhaps I might have led you to believe that I was not keeping to the point. Let me hasten to add that I am very much concerned with the amendment and with the position taken by the opposition, as summed up in the words of the hon. member for

Hamilton West-''Why the rush?" What I want to try to do is to deal with that because it does bear directly on the question whether this bill should be referred back to committee of the whole House or rather should be finally dealt with on third reading. Therefore, may I just continue to highlight very briefly the record. I mentioned that the hon. member for Edmonton West stated we were trying to ram things through in 1970.
.30 p.m.)


Steve Eugene Paproski: Irrelevant, Mr. Speaker.


Alastair William Gillespie: No, it is not. He found difficulty in coming to terms with the committee report. He did not know whether to vote for it or not. He decided not to. He rushed to a press conference in Victoria and said this was all a sham. Those are his words. He said that the government had made up its mind. That was over a year ago.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Those are falsehoods.


Alastair William Gillespie: They are not. They are on the record. The point I am trying to make is that throughout this whole debate the opposition tactic has been that "the government is trying to railroad this through. Give us more time. Let's go back and look at.it in detail". I hope to expose some of the transparency of this position in some of my later remarks.
The budget debate last June took place some eight months after the committee filed its report in the House. There had been considerable time taken by various interests throughout the nation to put their points to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). When we got into the debate, we saw the opposition again reveal its dilemma. They were not sure whether they should react favourably to the bill that was presented to the House in June and take credit for the changes in it or whether they should criticize it. Those of us who were sitting on this side of the House that day well remember the consternation on the faces of members opposite. They wondered what they should do and how they should react. The summer recess definitely saved them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Alastair William Gillespie: So much did they take shelter in the summer recess that some of them even forgot to look at the bill. Some even suggested they did not receive the bill on July 12.


Harold Warren Danforth: That is correct; only the government members received it then.


Alastair William Gillespie: Check the record. It was delivered to the offices of your leader and your research staff on July 12. The truth hurts.


Steve Eugene Paproski: If the shoe fits, you know what.


Alastair William Gillespie: When they saw the bill last June, the changes effected in it and saw the influence which the committee had on the bill, they worried because the participatory process was being legitimatized. Participation is not part of the character of the official opposition. It is not part of their tradition. The participatory process is not a part of their tradition.
December 15, 1971


Steve Eugene Paproski: You tell that to the people in the next election.


Alastair William Gillespie: I am delighted to see members opposite show some interest in my remarks. They have come to life.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Who wrote this stuff? Was it you, Hoot?


Alastair William Gillespie: The details of the bill were made clear in June of last year, over six months ago. The bill was published and distributed on July 12.


Harold Warren Danforth: To the government members.


Alastair William Gillespie: What did the Conservative members say when they came back in September? They said we were going to ram it through. The Stanfield ram came out to lead the flock.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is great stuff. We will use that in the next election.


Alastair William Gillespie: You might need it. You may need more than that.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: He is rehearsing as a straight man for tonight.


Alastair William Gillespie: What about this debate? By Friday we will have spent over 50 days of parliamentary time and yet we are accused of ramming it through. We spent 12 days on second reading and 32 days in committee of the whole and they want to send it back to the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Alastair William Gillespie: That does not include the six days we spent on the budget debate last June. I think this brief review of the record shows the opposition tactics for what they are. They have been aimed at trying to embarrass this government, to build up some concern, to avoid the substance of the bill and to suggest that the government is ramming it through with undue haste.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shame.


Alastair William Gillespie: According to the tacticians opposite, that is bound to create concern. The tacticians opposite also hope to cover up the disagreements within their own party.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Irrelevant, Mr. Speaker.


Alastair William Gillespie: How do you feel about the capital gains tax?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Who?


Alastair William Gillespie: You. This man is behind his leader. His leader supports the principles of the capital gains tax.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You are right.


Alastair William Gillespie: All members of the Conservative party do not support it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Alastair William Gillespie: Are you telling me that they all support it? The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander)
Income Tax Act
asked, why the rush? He demonstrated more stamina by speaking for 20 minutes than he did perceptiveness. He is known for his persuasive powers, but they did not come through this afternoon. Nor have the persuasive powers come through from the other side because, Mr. Speaker, the tactic has been wrong. The tactic too often has been cynical. It has been aimed at creating uncertainty rather than diminishing it. A week ago, when the Leader of the Opposition brought forth his spit proclamation-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Spit it out.


Alastair William Gillespie: -split proclamation amendment. The split personality of the opposition has bothered me. He said, as recorded at page 10,272 of Hansard:
I agree that what I am proposing will involve some uncertainty in the business world and among taxpayers as to what will eventually be worked out and adopted as a long-range tax plan for this country.


Mr. Bechard:: Who said that?


Alastair William Gillespie: That was a statement by the Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Harold Warren Danforth: I challenge the hon. member to read it in context.


Alastair William Gillespie: I read it. He acknowledged there will be uncertainty until this bill is passed. He then went on to say his particular provision would create uncertainty.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Irresponsible.


Alastair William Gillespie: On Wednesday, December 8, at 3.25 p.m., the Leader of the Opposition moved his split-the-bill amendment. It was a complicated idea, Mr. Speaker. One of the things he wanted this House to do was keep the federal government in the estate tax field. This was quite clear to those who have read the record. What did he do at 8.25 p.m.? He stood up and voted that estate taxes be eliminated as a federal responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Who did that?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Again I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member. I hesitate because I should have done it before when previous speakers were talking. Of course I admit that the minister did not have time to follow my advice in respect of reading what Mr. Speaker said yesterday about the rules of relevancy. The minister, however, is really placing the Chair in a very embarrassing position because other speakers will come along and ask for lenience. Then, it will be impossible to apply the rules of relevancy. At this time the debate is on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and is related only to personal income tax. I do not wish to be unfair, but I do not think the minister has said one word about the amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Sit down big mouth.

December 15, 1971
Income Tax Act


Mr. Deachman:: Mr. Speaker, concerning the remarks you have just made in respect of the ruling of Mr. Speaker yesterday, it is true that the amendment now before us refers to personal income tax and exemptions, but the motion is a motion to refer the entire bill back. The motion to refer the entire bill back would affect every single section of the bill.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Come on.


Harold Warren Danforth: Come on.


Grant Deachman: What we are arguing, Mr. Speaker, is the question of whether the whole bill should stay before us, including that section.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You are only a whip. What do you want to do, take over the Chair?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, on the point made by the chief government whip, who now sets himself up as an aspiring arbiter of the rules, I suggest this hon. member should know better. It is elementary that a motion of referral back with a direction to reconsider a particular clause contains a limitation on the committee of the whole to consider the clause in question only and nothing else. The whole thing is a referral back with that particular question to be considered. The hon. member does not know the form of a third reading motion. If he wished to understand the procedure, all he would have to do would be to study the rules. Then, he would learn just what is meant by this procedure. I would certainly help and assist him in any way. This is an invitation to the minister to reconsider section 117. That is the sole purpose of the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Steve Eugene Paproski: How do you like that, Deak?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I do not wish to become involved in a debate with hon. members on the rules. However, I might be permitted to say that the point raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Deachman) might be relevant in his mind, but I should point out to him that the Chair has another interpretation of the rules of the House. I might return at this time to the paragraph the hon. member did not have time to read from the remarks of Mr. Speaker yesterday. As recorded at page 10471 of Hansard Mr. Speaker said:
I agree with the hon. member in principle, but yesterday when we commenced debate on third reading of this bill an amendment was moved. It had to do with farming problems. Some speeches made after that amendment was moved made very few references, if any, to the amendment. It may be that hon. members who at that time took part in the debate on third reading should have tried to limit themselves to the amendment before the House. I repeat that that is a rule of the House. Debate should be relevant.
This might also be relevant:
It is difficult for the Chair to ask hon. members to respect this rule when some of the senior members on both sides of the House do not necessarily do what they should and follow this rule in practice. I invite hon. members to bear this in mind and to get to the point and refer to the amendment which is before us.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I apologize if I have appeared to take liberties with the interpretation you have placed on this. I have been concerned-and this is the main thrust of my remarks-that we should proceed to

the conclusion of this debate on the amendment which asks that the bill be referred back. Tax credits and higher exemptions are things which concern me. I was going to lead up to this in my final remarks. What I was attempting to show was that the tactics with regard to the criticism of the bill have been tactics rather than things of substance.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You were not here. How would you know.


Alastair William Gillespie: That is an interesting statement from the chief financial critic who has come to life again. I think one thing we should consider in this connection is the myth which I believe has been perpetrated, I suspect inadvertently but with the best intentions. The myth is that everybody can be a tax expert. Any member of this House who was a member of the House of Commons finance committee would know that this is patently untrue. I know the hon. member for Edmonton West would recognize this. This is one of the reasons the finance committee sought the advice of as many experts as it could obtain. It had before it something like 15 experts, professional consultants, economists, lawyers and accountants. One thing which came through very clearly in our discussions I believe was that there were some persons in the field of tax law, particularly international law, who had been practising for 20 years who did not feel they knew all the answers even after 20 years.


Harold Warren Danforth: But the government does in 50 days.


Alastair William Gillespie: Yet hon. members opposite suggest that everybody in this House can be an expert, and that all they have to do is listen carefully to a general statement and then find the answer to a specific provision.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But they tell us it is the
law.


Alastair William Gillespie: I have listened to and have read many of the comments concerning the area of tax credit versus higher tax exemptions. I am satisfied that the proposals in this bill are the right ones, they are very significant improvements as far as our tax laws are concerned. Hon. members opposite will recognize that when a million taxpayers are removed from the tax rolls, the changes have to be significant.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: You have no choice.


Alastair William Gillespie: They will recognize that when, nearly five million Canadians are going to pay lower taxes, those exemption levels have to be significant.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shame on you.


Alastair William Gillespie: I think that the time has come to proceed to third reading, to dispose of the amendment before us, and to recognize that this House of Commons can consider, can debate, but the decision must be taken by the government. This government was elected to take decisions. Hon. members opposite were not elected to take decisions. Their role is to consider,' to suggest and, where they see appropriate, to delay, but not to obstruct. Their
December 15, 1971

role is to illuminate but not to obstruct. Our responsibility as the government is to bring this debate and this issue to a close decisively, but at the same time to provide sufficient opportunity for members opposite to have their say.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


Steve Eugene Paproski: By applying closure.


Alastair William Gillespie: I suggest that after two years of parliamentary concern with this matter, after the House of Commons Committee has seen nearly a thousand briefs-


An hon. Member:: But not on this bill.


Alastair William Gillespie: -and has travelled from coast to coast, after having had this bill before us for six months and after having spent the equivalent of 50 days of parliamentary time, the time has come to dispose of this amendment, to vote it down, and to decide on the new bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That speech will never get you a promotion.


Mr. Gibson:: We do not need a promotion.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, it would seem that private discussions are now over.
We are now debating Bill C-259 on tax reform at the third reading stage. In my opinion, and in the opinion of many people we have approached, this is the most badly drafted bill ever presented to this House. So much so that the minister himself has had to bring a host of corrections and amendments even before the committee of the whole stage.
This bill has been so badly drafted the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has had to promise the Senate that amendments will be proposed early in the next session. Even though the bill is not passed, the minister already recognized that amendments were required.
So, Mr. Speaker, how could accountants, lawyers, businessmen and individuals understand this bill?
Under the previous legislation, many people had difficulty getting the abatements they were entitled to or were penalized because they did not fully understand the legislation. I say that if this bill in its present wording goes through and remains in force for at least the next ten years, the Canadian taxpayers will run into almost insuperable difficulties'.
We are now considering an amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to refer the bill back to the committee of the whole House for the purpose of improving a part of the bill concerning the taxpayer who always was the most neglected in public administration, the labourer. That can apply also to other workers.
I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is right when he asks for a thorough examination of that section of the bill in order to bring corrections where necessary and we approve of that. However, we of the Social Credit Party believe that the scope of the amendment moved by the member for Winnipeg North Centre is
Income Tax Act
not wide enough and we intend to move and amendment to another section of the bill that also concerns the Canadians workers, so as to allow more equitable deductions for their expenses.
I shall speak about that later on, Mr. Speaker.
I was saying that the bill was very complex and that its drafting has been slipshod. I am not the only one to think so.	.
I have before me a brief submitted by the Canadian Association of Pulp and Paper Manufacturers in which, at the very beginning, they have this to say regarding Bill C-259.1 quote:
Its wording is very difficult and it is full of new concepts and definitions.
In short, Mr. Speaker, it is for all practical purposes a new legislation which the government will have to implement and the Canadian taxpayer to put up with. Tax experts will have to study it for several months before they can understand its effects and discover all the implications of its numerous sections.
Tax experts themselves-and not "fiscal experts" as they were referred to by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Leblanc) a few days ago-will have to spend several months studying and understanding every aspect of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comparison between this bill and the Unemployment Insurance bill passed some time ago and which has been considerably amended since then.
When that bill was passed, Mr. Speaker, high officials of the Unemployment Insurance Commission encountered difficulty in understanding it and were unable to explain its implications.
It was necessary in all stages as the problem arose for Unemployment Insurance Commission officials to give their opinion and try to interpret this act. Several months after its implementation those officials admit that they are far from understanding fully the act which is a great deal less voluminous than Bill C-259.
So the accountants who will be called upon to help taxpayers, and businessmen, fill out their income tax returns will have, in the very first month following the implementation of this act, to start preparing their income tax returns for spring of 1972. How will they be able to come out of it?
It has been reported-and the Senate already knows about it-that income tax return forms for fiscal year 1971 are already available when the new act has not been even passed, and this allegation has yet to be denied.
Mr. Speaker, I think we were right in our opposition to the guillotine and we do not accept the accusations laid by the government to the effect that the opposition deliberately delayed the study of this bill.
I continue quoting from the brief submitted by the Canadian Pulp and Paper Producers Association:
It is difficult to imagine how members of Parliament with their many other responsibilities can appreciate the effects of the proposed reforms in the few weeks they will have to study it.

December 15, 1971
Income Tax Act
Now, these businessmen are worrying about the way hon. members can, in a few weeks only, digest all the aspects of this new legislation.
In the committee of the whole, when the closure rule was applied, hon. members realized that most clauses of this bill had not even been considered.
We are faced with a high-gear implementation that we cannot accept without protest, and my colleague from Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) was right in saying a few days ago that Bill C-259 should normally have been divided in ten parts. Since we devoted a good many days to the study of such a huge bill, nobody can blame us.
Mr. Speaker, as early as 1964, when the tax reform was under way, people worried about its results. An editorial written by Maurice Huot in Le Droit of Ottawa reported as follows:
Say what you will, but the only way for a taxpayer to know whether his country, his province or his municipality is well managed is to figure out how much he pays out in taxes of all kinds. Even if attempts are made to lull him to sleep with high sounding words and empty slogans fed from public platforms in times of election, the fact remains that as long as the man on the street is being taxed hand over fist he will be right in having doubts about the efficient administration of the elected.
Mr. Speaker, as early as 1964, people worried about the effects of this tax reform which is about to be implemented.
Canadians in all walks of life are over burdened by taxes and levies of every description and they cannot bear them anymore. The present changes in the tax legislation are only meant to boost government revenue. It has been stated in studies made elsewhere that this reform will bring from $600 million to $1 billion more to the government. Who will bear the costs? The Canadian taxpayer or consumer, because taxes are always levied on workers.
For example, the capital gains tax which is supposed to be imposed on corporations will ultimately be paid by consumers under the form of increased prices which will worsen the inflationary pressure. A company can operate or survive if it succeeds in including in the price of its products all its costs, otherwise it goes bankrupt. If some cost is not included in prices the business becomes poorer and eventually goes under.
It is impossible to effectively tax a producer of the capitalist type, because his existence as a producer depends on his ability to pass on to the consumer all costs arising from the production in his firm.
Firms will tend to inflate their costs in proportion to the additional taxes that this government will inflict upon them.
It is unthinkable to believe that an unfair system will be improved by measures which will make it still more unfair.
Mr. Speaker, I am not the only one to think this way. In an editorial, on Quebec television, this was stated on November 13,1969:
To aim at fair taxation is all right-to achieve it is, however, another thing. If you admit, at the beginning, that any direct or indirect tax increases the normal cost of goods and services, it is still as always the consumer who will foot the bill. In the end, the real taxpayer is the consumer.
And the program editor added:
-the investor may prefer to by-pass the investments that are more (Mr. Laprise.]
hazardous, but also more productive, and limit himself to those offering better dividends or interest. One can imagine the effect of such a reaction on the creation of new industries.
Mr. Speaker, the government's decision to tax capital gains will not only bring the small and medium-sized industry to the brink of bankruptcy, but it will also prevent the creation of new industries.
This legislation, besides making the consumer foot the bill, will result in increased unemployment and will allow big trusts to operate in a way still more detrimental to small and medium enterprise. That is what we cannot accept, that is why we are fighting the legislation at this time.
Taxation is theft when it is imposed on taxpayers who do not have enough money to purchase the requisites for a decent way of living, when these exist abundantly in Canada.
The individual is taxed to the utmost on every kind of pretext that can be brought up. The legislation apparently gives him a sop by way of a very slight increase in the basic exemption on his income, whereas the exemption is not even equivalent to what it was in 1949.
Mr. Speaker, it is just on such a point that the government will attempt to sensitize the people during the next electoral campaign, which I expect will be launched at the beginning of 1972. But the government will forget to make the people understand, or remind them, that eventually the surplus the government will bring in through this tax reform will come from the consumer.
Taxes are highway robbery as long as there are unsold goods, unemployed hands, idle productive capacities through lack of sale of these goods induced by the severely curtailed purchasing power of the taxpayer.
Mr. Speaker, I say that there must be a tax system, not to finance government budgets but to levy taxes only where there is too much money. The present tax system exists in order to finance the government's budget and the levies are made where there is not even enough money. And families and individuals lose the purchasing power they must have to lead a decent life.
In other areas, studies are being made to find out what is wrong, where are the poor and how many they are in Canada. We do not seem to realize that the main cause of poverty in Canada is our tax system which is not only wrong but helps take money from those who have not enough of it already. That made former Manitoba Conservative Premier John Bracken say in 1942 that our tax system is conceived so as to take money from the poor to give it to the rich. Mr. Bracken explained that buyers of government bonds are not necessarily poor; they are big corporations, people who amassed large amounts of savings, people who have capital. But those who pay taxes enabling the government to pay interests to bond holders are the workers, the little people.
It is stealing to levy taxes at the present time when they lessen the purchasing power, cause an accumulation of products and deprive the population just like inflation. Taxes should simply withdraw surplus money in circulation while there are not enough products. When money, is scarce, taxes are no solution. Instead the purchasing
December 15, 1971

power should be expanded by means of dividends or a compensated discount which would bring back prices to the real cost of production.
This is what we want, what we are offering in order to face the voracity of the government which keeps on levying ever higher taxes on individuals.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to revert to what I said earlier concerning section 8 of Bill C-259 which provides for a deduction of $150 or 3 per cent of the income, up to that amount for taxpayers with transport or equipment expenses. We raised that question on second reading as well as during the debate in the committee of the whole. We moved an amendment on this, because it seemed to my colleagues and to myself that this section had not been looked at closely enough. That is why I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin):
That the amendment be amended by replacing the period by a coma and by adding the following: "and that in addition it reconsider subparagraph (a) of paragraph (1) of subsection 8 of clause 1 in order to allow taxpayers to deduct from their income all employment expenses supported by evidence."
Mr. Speaker, the reason for this subamendment is to bring the necessary corrections to the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, so that all Canadian taxpayers may be allowed to claim their working expenses, provided they enclose receipts, in the same way as other classes of society are allowed to do at present. If people such as commercial travellers, insurance agents, accountants, doctors, and lawyers can claim all their working expenses, we have every reason to believe that it is only fair that all Canadian taxpayers who have to face fairly high, and continually increasing, expenses should be allowed to claim all their working expenses, provided, of course, they enclose receipts. I think that in all fairness the House should pass this subamendment, as well as the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, so that the committee of the whole may have an opportunity to give further consideration to those two sections, in order to have an equitable system for all Canadian taxpayers.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has moved an amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I have some doubts about whether the subamendment is acceptable. I say this in a preliminary way only, because I would be prepared to hear hon. members who may wish to assist the Chair. It seems to me, however, that the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred back for consideration the proposed new section 117(1) as set out in clause 1 of the bill at pages 313 and 314. As hon. members know that section deals with a proposal to reduce, if I may use the expression, the "across the board" rate of taxation. The hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise), who has proposed the subamendment, would refer back to committee of the whole an entirely different section of the bill which deals with another matter. I have some doubts about the acceptability of this and if hon. members would care to assist me I should be pleased to hear them.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, the subamendment moved by my friend, the hon. member for
Income Tax Act
Abitibi (Mr. Laprise), is supplementary to the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) which implicitly aims at giving the committee an opportunity of studying the reduction of tax rates and I quote:
-and in particular for the purpose of reconsidering the changing of the figure "17 per cent" in line 33 on page 313 to "2 per cent" and consequentially reducing the amount at the beginning of each of the paragraphs ... by $75.
Mr. Speaker, the principle which is implicit in the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is the reduction of income tax, not only for a single category of taxpayers, but for all Canadian taxpayers. To be in order, and in accordance with the decision rendered by the Chair recently, this amendment should not refer to a single group of taxpayers, but to all of them.
The subamendment moved by the hon. member for Abitibi is to the same effect, i.e. that we propose, when the committee of the whole considers the section referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that it consider at the same time section 8 relating specifically to deductible items and the basic deductions for personal income tax.
The two motions aim equally at reducing taxes for all Canadian taxpayers. The only implicit difference between the subamendment and the amendment is that the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre provides exact figures and replaces "17 per cent" by "2 per cent", which results in a $'75 reduction. The aim pursued by my friend the hon. member for Abitibi is the following and I quote:
-to allow taxpayers to deduct from their income all employment expenses supported by evidence.
Therefore, if the committee were to accept this proposal to include it in the bill this would mean that all Canadian taxpayers could deduct from their incomes certain amounts of money that they had to spend in order to finance the purchase of equipment necessary to their work.
Therefore, all taxpayers taking advantage of the proposal made by the hon. member for Abitibi will automatically enjoy a tax deduction, which would have the same effect as that of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
That is why my colleague, the hon. member for Abitibi has chosen to move his sub-amendment at this time. If we give the committee of the whole the right to reduce the taxes of all Canadian taxpayers-we agree on that-why not give it at the same time the possibility to reduce the taxes of all taxpayers by saying that all taxpayers may deduct from their incomes all expenses related to their work as long as they produce proof to that effect?
In this amendment we could have talked about the percentage that is equivalent to $150 but this is precisely what we are against. In section 8(1) the government talks about a maximum amount of $150 or 3 per cent of the income. This amendment would have the effect of doing away with the provision saying that it will be $150 or 3 per cent, and this would have the same results as that seeked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. In fact, his amendment is on general income whereas ours is on related expenses.

December 15, 1971
Income Tax Act
This is why, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this sub-amendment does not involve just one class of workers but also the professional, the poor, the low income people, the average citizens and all the taxpayers ,and because it is aimed directly at reducing taxes for all taxpayers if the committee should accept it, I humbly submit that it is in order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to speak at this point. I should like to do that later. May I ask the hon. member a question. I wonder if he realizes that the question Your Honour was raising, if I understood Your Honour correctly, had to do not so much with the substance of the proposed subamendment, but rather you were wondering if it is relevant to the amendment. I will have something to say on that point. Perhaps the hon. member would like to speak on that aspect as well.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for reminding me of this particular point which I just mentioned earlier, but in my opinion this sub-amendment is obviously desirable since it would permit taxpayers to claim part of the expenses incurred in producing the income mentioned by the member for Winnipeg North Centre.
The amendment presented by the hon. member from Winnipeg North Centre, as my colleague for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) has said, is aimed at producing a net income. In effect, the amendment of the member for Winnipeg North Centre reads partly as follows, and I quote:
... and in particular for the purpose of reconsidering the changing of the figure "17 per cent in line 33 on page 313 to "2 per cent" and consequentially reducing the amount at the beginning of each of the paragraphs . ..
And then he lists them.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre wanted the net income of the taxpayer to be considered and reduced by $75. Our amendment concerns precisely the situation prevailing before the net income is established, and is designed to determine what is that net income. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre presumes that the computation of the tax has been done and that, on the whole, the tax rate is being reduced in order that the reduction may amount to $75. We are saying that the gross income should be taken into consideration and include larger employment expenses, in order to allow larger deductions, after which is obtained the net income to which applies the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
In my opinion the sub-amendment is closely related to the amendment, since both directly affect the taxpayer's income, regardless of his situation. One allows the other to better determine the gross income so as to obtain the net income. In the end, if the amendment and the subamendment are passed, thg taxpayer will be allowed a tax reduction thanks to the proposal of the hon. member for

Winnipeg North Centre, because the deduction of expenses relating to the taxpayer's employment will have been accepted, as was suggested by the hon. member for Abitibi.
I believe Mr. Speaker, this is a further reason for ruling this amendment in order.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the hon. member has not provided us with a copy of the amendment in either official language. This makes it difficult to contribute to this debate on the acceptability of this amendment. May I suggest that the Chair may wish to take this question under advisement and if, tomorrow, there is still a disposition to argue the procedural matter, we could do that when the bill is called. I regret that, so far, I am not in a position to contribute to the debate. In fairness, I think we should be given the opportunity to do that.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I should like to apologize to the hon. parliamentary secretary, but my colleague from Abitibi had ten copies of the sub-amendment a moment ago, which he gave to the House employee who usually distributes them to the members.
I can see that the parliamentary secretary now has in his hand a copy of the sub-amendment. Perhaps he could make some comments and say whether he agrees to it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I wish to indicate that the Chair has no doubt about the ruling that should be made. If other hon. members wish to contribute to the debate, I will hear them, although I am quite prepared to rule at this point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the way you said that must have sounded a bit ominous to my friends.


An hon. Member:: Why?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Deputy Speaker said he is prepared to rule. Perhaps I should not try to read his mind. I thought he would give a negative ruling. May I also, in this connection, support the suggestion made by the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) that the decision might be delayed.
I wish to make a particular point to Your Honour. I see difficulties with this subamendment procedurally. As for its substance, I like it, although I think a tax credit would have been better. Procedurally, however, I see difficulties. One of the difficulties I see, and I suspect this concerns Your Honour, stems from the fact that the amendment which I moved calls for a reference back to deal with a specific section, namely, section 117(1) as set out in clause 1 of the bill. The proposed subamendment deals with a different section altogether, section 8(l)(a), although this, too, is in clause 1 of the bill. I certainly foresee difficulty in that respect. As for the substance of the subamendment, I think the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) has made a good case. In other words, if it were being presented by itself as a new amendment on third reading
December 15, 1971

calling for reference back, I think there is a good chance that Your Honour would find it in order.
The point I wish to make is a very practical one and takes into account the situation in which we find ourselves. I would remind you, Sir, that it happened that Your Honour, Mr. Deputy Speaker, was in the chair a week ago this afternoon when we were under closure. Certain amendments had been moved and Your Honour felt it would not be fair for the time of the committee to be taken up by procedural arguments but, rather, that without establishing precedents, certain amendments which had been put forward that day should be allowed.
The point I wish to make is that again we are under closure. At the moment, we are debating an amendment in my name. Presumably, a vote on that amendment will come soon, but one cannot be sure of that. I know that if our amendment is voted on and disposed of in one way or another we have others we should like to move. Hon. members in the official opposition have made no secret of the fact that they, too, have other amendments they would like to move. I do not see any opportunity for hon. members of the Social Credit party to get in even one amendment to the motion for third reading before this debate is closed off on Friday. I wonder whether Your Honour might not take these circumstances into consideration and give some thought to the possibility of allowing this subamendment, even though it is on a separate subject, so that hon. members in the fourth party in the House might have a chance of a vote on a matter which they feel is important.
I wish to say quite candidly that I am asking for something which is procedurally irregular. But this is an irregular week. We are having to operate under conditions which are not normal. Normally, on third reading of a bill such as this, we could put forward 75 different amendments proposing reference back to reconsider one after another of the clauses. But in the present circumstances we shall not have an opportunity to do that. Accordingly, I ask whether Your Honour might not consider making a ruling in the spirit in which you made rulings last Wednesday afternoon.


Mr. McCleave:: I think this suggestion carries with it a measure of airness, Mr. Speaker. Though I may be next in line, and may be the one who is to be gored by this impromptu speech I am making now, I would support what has been said by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre as a reasonable suggestion in the interests of all parties in the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I indicated I was prepared to make a ruling on the procedural point raised concerning the acceptability of the proposed subamendment. I shall make such a ruling, now. But first, I wish to refer to the very reasonable and lucid argument of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) which has just been ably supported by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave).
Hon. members who put forward arguments of this kind really place the Chair in a difficult position. I say this because, after all, it is not the Chair which has decided that the House of Commons shall operate in the circum-
Income Tax Act
stances in which we are operating today. It is hon. members who determine that we shall operate under a time limitation. So, while I understand and am very much moved, by the appeal put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants, I do feel that if I were to base my ruling on that sort of agreement abuses could arise in the futurs. I have concluded, therefore, that I have to rule in accordance with the prececents binding the Chair.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre mentioned the situation which arose a week ago today when we were operating under a time allocation order. I think there was some difference, there. As I recall it, the time available between the end of the question period and the time at which the votes were to be taken, amounted to an hour and a half, or, maybe, two hours. I do not recall the number of amendments which were submitted, but their number was considerable. As the hon. member has said, I took some responsibility in my initial ruling as chairman of the committee, and I think that ruling was followed by my colleagues with respect to subsequent amendments. I felt that in this unusual situation, and in order that hon. members might have an opportunity to express their views on the amendments, they might be allowed in those circumstances. Indeed, there was no time in which to give much study to the procedural aspect. On this occasion, however, there are two more days of debate left. I feel there is considerable difference between the two situations and I would not want the Chair to be placed in the position of finding this argument placed before it whenever a motion has been agreed to of the kind under which we are presently operating.
The other point is this. It is really in the hands of hon. members, not in the hands of the Chair, as to when the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is dealt with. When it has been dealt with it will be open to other hon. members to make amendments to the main motion. It seems to me that this is a matter for regulation between hon. members, particularly those to the left of the chair, to determine which hon. members should have the opportunity to propose further amendments.
I say at once that if the subamendment proposed by the hon. member for Abitibi had been proposed as an amendment to the main motion there would be no hesitation in my mind about accepting it. If I were in the chair, and if that subamendment were proposed as an amendment to the main motion, I would accept it. But the Chair has responsibilities from a procedural standpoint. What the hon. member for Abitibi is asking the Chair to accept is a very reasonable amendment, but he is dealing with another section of clause one.
The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) has argued very persuasively that as far as the question of relevance is concerned the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the proposed subamendment both reduce the tax load falling upon the taxpayer. I have no difficulty in agreeing with that contention. The difficulty is that when an hon. member proposes a subamendment he is under the constraint that he must not enlarge on, or differ in substance from, the amendment he is purporting to further amend. The amendment now before the House in the name of the hon. member for

December 15, 1971
Income Tax Act
Winnipeg North Centre deals with a specific section in clause one and it would have the effect of reducing a tax right across the board.
In passing, I would think that if, for example, the hon. member had proposed a subamendment to that amendment by changing 2 per cent to 3 per cent, or 1 per cent, it might well be in order. But what the Chair has before it is a proposal which would change a different section dealing with employment expenses reductions. I cannot find that it is relevant to the amendment in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. With regret, I shall have to rule on the basis of the precedents by which I must be guided and I am unable to put the proposed subamendment to the House.


Mr. Allan B. Sulatycky (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister oi Energy. Mines and Resources):: This debate, Mr. Speaker, has been a very long one. Understandably, some members have played a more prominent role throughout its length than others. Last week the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) mentioned the outstanding work of some members of the House, particularly of his parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) who has played such an important role in piloting this legislation. I have not yet heard another hon. member mentioned, one who deserves a great deal of complimenting for his efforts in this debate right from its very beginning, an hon. member who has carried out a very difficult task exceedingly well. I refer to the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) who has been spokesman in this debate for the Conservative party.
.40 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allen B. Sulatycky: Indeed, sometimes it appeared that he was the only one in that party who took any real interest in this bill. Throughout the debate he displayed a very reasonable and responsible attitude. I have been very impressed by his performance and his reputation, to my mind at least, has gone very high. I want to compliment him on his efforts and to express my admiration to him. It is not easy, as the hon. member for Edmonton West was called upon to do, to oppose good and beneficial legislation, as he has in this case. That is a very difficult task, but I compliment him for having done it very well.
In the few minutes that I have I want to outline what I propose to say later on in my speech. I want to emphasize just how many benefits this legislation confers upon the Canadian people. This legislation will benefit those people who most deserve to benefit, who most deserve a tax break. By implementing this legislation, we will bring greater fairness to our tax laws, something that they have lacked for many years. Indeed, a degree of fairness has been lacking from the very beginning of our income tax system, a degree of fairness that I hope will be achieved and that I believe will be achieved with the implementation of this legislation.
I cannot help but comment upon the attitude displayed to this legislation by opposition parties, how one speaks for special interests and privileged groups, and how another does not have the guts to speak for anyone. Let me make it plain for whom I want to speak today. I want to speak for those citizens, the ordinary average working

Canadians in my riding and elsewhere, who have been carrying more than their fair share of the tax load for far too long. For them this bill will bring very welcome relief. Even the official opposition know that this bill is a giant step forward in the interests of the average Canadian.
The first official reaction of the official opposition was an indication of just how good they thought this bill was for the Canadian people. All hon. members will remember that when the terms of this bill were first enunciated by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Eenson), the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) went running out to the TV cameras and the press as fast as he could to say that the thing was so good the government was going to call an election right away.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He was wrong, wasn't he?


Allen B. Sulatycky: He was wrong about the election but not about how good this legislation is. This reaction of the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings reflected about as much commonsense as the latest reaction of the Conservative party to this bill. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has stated: "Yes, reduce taxes for most of the people, but in doing so you should not make up the difference by imposing higher taxes on our friends in the privileged classes and in big business". That is something I cannot accept. There will be an election, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings has predicted. It will come in due course, and I predict that when it does come the Conservative party will be out across Canada trying to cover up the benefits that this legislation has brought the Canadian people. Because they will not want the Canadian people to give credit to the Liberal party, credit that the Liberal party deserves, for implementing this legislation after ten years of debate on tax reform.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: If they have no more than they have in the House at the moment there will not be very many here.


Allen B. Sulatycky: The very good things, the positive aspects, of this legislation have been enumerated very often and should not need repeating. However, I want to repeat them and to list them, in order that I can focus attention on the great importance of this bill to the average Canadian, the working man, the older citizen and the average taxpayer of Canada.
It has been said-and my hon. friends in the New Democratic Party and many members of the Conservative party will agree-that the only taxpayer who pays his fair share of taxes is the worker, the employee whose income tax is deducted before he sees his pay cheque. He is the one for whom the Income Tax Act provides no loopholes, for whom it contains no provisions enabling him to escape his full share of tax liability. There are other categories of taxpayers who have found loopholes and for whom special provisions have been passed to enable them to escape the full and sometimes onerous burden of income tax.
This bill will go a long way towards straightening out the inequities that have existed up to now. The most important effect of the bill is that beginning on January 1, 1972, a little more than two weeks from now, there will be tax reductions for every married wage earner in Canada;
December 15, 1971

every single wage earner who earns under $8,000 a year will also pay less tax. This means that hundreds of thousands of people who heretofore have had to pay income tax will be removed from the tax rolls completely, and that several million more will have their taxes reduced significantly. Beginning next month all these people will find a few more dollars on their take-home pay cheque each pay day.
I take a great deal of pride and satisfaction from the fact that it is this government, the government that I support, that is bringing this about. This is a government concerned about fair treatment for all, a government concerned about social justice, a government concerned about all the people of Canada, not just a select few. I might also add it is a government that is willing to take and accept its responsibilities. When the time comes to vote on a particular issue, when the public is convinced the issue is a just one, this government brings the issue to a vote.
Another aspect of this bill that gives me a great deal of satisfaction is the benefits that will accrue as a result of the bill to our senior citizens. No single group will benefit as much as they. Comparatively speaking, they will get the greatest benefits of all. With the passage of this bill, the majority of Canadian citizens over 65 years of age will not be required to pay any income tax at all, and that is as it should be. These people who have been making their contribution to this country during their productive lifetime, through their hard work and payment of taxes, should not be required to pay income tax in their retirement years.
I have stated generally what I believe the effects of the legislation will be on the average Canadian, and I now want to look at some of the details of the legislation. I know these matters have been mentioned before, but perhaps they have not been mentioned often enough. First, and this is very important, personal exemptions will be raised to $1,500 from $1,000 for single persons and to $2,850 from $2,000 for married persons. In addition, a new innovation in the income tax system in this country will be the deductibility of child care expenses up to $500 for
Royal Assent
every child under 14 years to a maximum of $2,000 per family. I am sure everyone in this House is aware of the many thousands of working couples. One member of the family, either of the two spouses, will be able to claim baby sitting expenses of $500 per annum for each child up to a maximum of $2,000. This has not been available before. It has been a great inequity in our income tax system.
The payments made to a baby sitter, day care centre or some other individual or institution for looking after children of people who are required to work could not be deducted as an expense, although it was as legitimate an expense in the process of earning income as almost any expense that could be claimed by business people in this country in their business operations. I welcome that as a very important step forward. May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


THE ROYAL ASSENT
[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follow^:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following bills:
An act respecting Central-Del Rio Oils Limited
An act respecting the Royal Victoria Hospital
An act to provide for the obtaining of information respecting weather modification activities.
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1972.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday. December 16. 1971