1971-12-14

Mr. John Roberts (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition referred to reports of my speech last week at Thunder Bay. These reports are inaccurate, but I will correct them in the normal way later on in the course of debate.
I am rather concerned, however, about Hansard for yesterday, page 10430, where the comment is ascribed to me, with reference to the hon. member for St. John's East, that he was "a little like the kink in 'Alice'".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Moody) Roberts: What I said was, "a little like the king in 'Alice'". I do not believe that the hon. member-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Baldwin:: You are the Mad Hatter.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the notice given yesterday I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson):
That the time provided for the consideration of government business in the sittings of Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, the 15th, 16th and 17th of December, 1971, be allotted for the further consideration and disposal of the third reading and passage stage of Bill C-259, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act and to make certain provisions and alterations in the statute law related to or consequential upon the amendments to that Act, and of amendments proposed thereto; and
That at 3:45 p.m. in the sitting of Friday, December 17, 1971, any proceeding then before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of the third reading and passage stage of the said bill and of any amendment thereto, shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.
He said: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House of Commons completed its 46th day spent in consideration of Bill C-259. If the motion I am proposing today is carried and put into effect, on Friday next the House will have devot-24725-32.1
ed the equivalent of 50 parliamentary days to this bill in all its stages- second reading, Committee of the Whole and third reading. By making available that considerable amount of time it has been possible for members of the House to examine all issues involved in the bill.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Nonsense!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The general comment is made that insufficient study has been given to the bill. Yet no precise proposals have been made as to what additional time would be justified and what unexplored aspects of the bill require further discussion.
The request to the House to pass the first time allocation motion was made by the government after the bill had been before the House for 39 days and when it was prepared to take responsibility for the implications of such a course of action. In the circumstances, we had reached a number of conclusions. We were of the opinion that spokesmen for opposition parties and members of the House generally had had sufficient opportunity to express their views on all areas of the bill, that public opinion would feel that the House of Commons was not being asked precipitately to make up its mind on the bill, that there were no areas of discussion remaining to which public attention had not been drawn, or which demanded further consideration, and that the House itself would not feel any genuine outrage that it was being treated in an unfair way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: At no point did I feel it was the responsibility of opposition parties to take the initiative in bringing about time allocation. Such an outcome is not even contemplated under our Standing Orders.
However, the situation today is much clearer than it was on December 2, the day when the first motion was moved. First of all, members of opposition parties are not solid in their opposition to the government's action. For example, the experienced member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) has stated that the opposition has been given a fair show and it is necessary for the government to govern.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: He went on to say: "I would do the same thing if I were in the government's shoes". The hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) has said that the government has a right to govern and then to be judged by the people. The Leader of the Opposition in the other place a week ago today made a suggestion to the government leader in the other place as follows:
I suggest to the hon. leader that he should persuade the government to impose closure in such a manner as to permit the Senate to deal with the bill at the beginning of next week.

December 14, 1971
Income Tax Act
That was on Monday of this week. We also know from subsequent experience that no new issues were raised in Committee of the Whole and that the committee, quite properly, spent its time discussing issues that had already been exhaustively examined. We know too that today editorial opinion in the country is divided. If one were to reach a judgment it would be that probably editorial opinion is slightly in favour of the action taken by the government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Finally, it is also clear that the public has not been roused to any state of indignation. In fact, it is my feeling that the public in general supports the action of the government in bringing this debate to a conclusion. As the amount and complexity of legislation increases, we are also conscious that time is not unlimited, that every day spent on the tax bill is a day that cannot be used to clear other legislation on the order paper now awaiting our attention.
In the sessions between 1960 and 1968 Parliament sat an average of 142 days. During the first two sessions of this Parliament we sat an average of 176 days, and this, Mr. Speaker, is the 231st day of this session. Whereas in the previous period Parliament enacted an average of 46 public bills per session, during the first two sessions of this Parliament we enacted 65 bills per session.
It is apparent that the pace of public business requires a different attitude in the House of Commons and that this requires the House to change its procedures in order to cope with the accelerating pace of public business.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: What is crystal clear from these facts is that if Parliament is to meet the requirements of today-


Mr. Stanfield:: The government must produce sensible legislation.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -it must become more willing rather than less willing to accept reasonable organization of its business through time allocation procedures. Political parties in the House must adapt as well to the accelerating pace of public business.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In his speech last week the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) candidly revealed to the House that his party lost almost two months in commencing its study of Bill C-259. That is regrettable, Mr. Speaker, but the House of Commons cannot be expected to delay reaching decisions in order to accommodate an inalert opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The public expects the government to try to get its legislation through the House. The public not only expects the government to try, the public expects the
[Mr. MacEachen.J
government to succeed. In this connection may I put on the record an apt quotation-


Mr. Nowlan:: Is this the minister's valedictory speech?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister's time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: It sure has. He has expired.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, we have heard, in the remarks of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) the greatest misapplication, misinterpretation and, frankly, misrepresentation to the House of statistics.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: We have heard false statistics and even falser conclusions. I will not dignify his remarks with further comment because they were not worthy of the hon. gentleman.


Gerald William Baldwin: Did you get that, buster?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: We have seen today a further demonstration of that spirit of the sun god that in history made a man say, "1'etat, c'est moi". This whole philosophy pervades the attitude of hon. members opposite. Of course, few if any of them sat here when Standing Order 33 was used previously. If this government had had the guts and the moral courage it would have said it was going to use closure and have used it; instead, the government uses the term, "allocation of time".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: All we hear from the backbenchers on the other side is just frustration stemming from their inability to participate in this debate-


An hon. Member:: You are not speaking for us.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -their inability to speak coherently and intelligently about the provisions of the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Not one of them has demonstrated that he can do so, at least not from what we have heard so far.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: And the minister stayed out of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: If the government had used Standing Order 33 it would have been bad enough, as it was on the previous occasion. But a week or ten days ago when Section 75C was used in the House some 200 clauses of the bill had not been considered. Here the President of the Privy Council was totally wrong. He
December 14, 1971

knows very well that the government had no plan whatsoever for the debate in Committee of the Whole and that it was an opposition proposal which dealt with major subject areas.
Nothing has been done yet about the transitional clauses starting from clause 3 onward. Not one word was said about those clauses. Not one word was uttered by the government as to when they would be discussed. The proposals as to time came always from the opposition. The areas of discussion were known. Allocation of time, if I may say so, was to be traded off against the interests of particular taxpayers. This is shameful. Yet we get the assertion that every area of the bill was considered. Not one clause beyond clause 3 which had to deal with the repeal of estate tax was considered-nothing beyond that. I defy the President of the Privy Council to say one of them was considered. Not one of the transitional rules was dealt with.
Many of the transitional rules are different from the previous act. The penalties are different. Some of the penalties provided for any offence prior to the coming into force of this new act are even more barbarous than the previous ones. Honourable members sit back in amazement. They do not even know what is in those clauses.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Nor care.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: And they do not care, as my colleague says. It is unfortunate. These people represent government, big government dispensing largesse to the taxpayers of this country. Who are the taxpayers of this country? They are to be the victims of this monumental abortion. If the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) wants to talk about abortion, here is one right here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is what these people think. The taxpayers of this country are to have foisted on them the provisions of this particular document. Who are the taxpayers? They are the people who put the government in office. Yet they would trample upon their necks and say to them that they are lucky peasants to be under this regime that is dispensing so much largesse. Their figures are totally wrong. They misrepresent the facts as to the reduction of taxes. They do not say they are going to tax unemployment insurance benefits and training allowances to raise more revenues. They do not say that they are going to raise the revenue of the people to bring them into higher tax brackets. What they give with the one hand they take away with the other. All these figures quoted about the number of taxpayers waiting breathlessly for the benefits of the new act are hollow mockery. The government is being totally dishonest with regard to the Canadian public.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In this instance the government imposed closure after one day's debate on third reading. We got notice that the government had made up its mind to do this for administrative reasons and
Income Tax Act
administrative reasons only and because of their own misreading of amendments put forward by the opposition with regard to splitting the bill that had been supported by the majority of major newspapers in this country. I do not know what newspapers the President of the Privy Council has been reading but they certainly do not represent the majority in this country. The government is trying to dragoon the Senate, and it will be very interesting to see how that body behaves after the visit yesterday from the Minister of Finance.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What kind of bribery, what kind of threats were used on the Senate in suggesting that they should deal with this bill in a matter of a few hours? Is debate on the bill to be finished by the end of this week? We say that never has there been such a shameful performance as that of this government in imposing closure on a most important document which will affect the whole of the Canadian economy. Government members sit back and smile as though they are not to be affected by it. Of course they are.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon there was a whistling noise in the sound reinforcement system.]


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The Martians are landing. Even the elements are disturbed, Mr. Speaker. Of course it might be that spirits from the outer world have come down to shout their protests.


Mr. Lewis:: Perhaps that of Mackenzie King.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: As has been suggested, perhaps the spirit of Mackenzie King, although I suppose members over there would deny the existence of the reign of that right hon. gentleman.
This has been a shameful performance. I hope that the Canadian public who are to be the victims of this act will recognize who imposed it upon them, who forbade and prevented the provinces from negotiating the necessary agreements. The Minister of Finance knows that the provinces have not replied to him with regard to death duties. Many amendments to the act have not yet been received, and the whole thing is in total disarray.
The motion presented by the President of the Privy Council is wholly motivated by the disarray and ineptitude of this government in bringing forward a bill of this kind under these conditions.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on December 2 I gave three reasons for our opposing the motion made on that occasion to close the debate on Bill C-259 at the Committee of the Whole stage. Those three reasons still apply today, but I have three more. First, to move closure under Rule 75C at this stage is a violation of the purpose of third reading. Second, I agree with an editorial in the Winnipeg Tribune-I have seen similar comment in other newspapers as well-that what the government is doing is showing its contempt for Parliament and contempt for the parliamentary process.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

December 14, 1971
Income Tax Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: Third, closing off debate in this way by unilateral action on the part of the government is an admission of absolute failure to find a sensible way to plan and allocate the time of the parliamentary year. Every time this is done we put off the day when such a sensible plan will be achieved.
I said, Mr. Speaker, that my first reason today for opposing this measure is that introducing closure at this stage is a violation of the purpose of third reading. I hold in my hand the Journals for the session of 1968-69 and I am looking at page 433 which contains a portion of the third report of the Special Committee on Procedure of the House which had been tabled that day. That report annotated the procedural changes that were made in that session and gave the views of the Special Committee on Procedure. The paragraph to which I wish to draw attention represents the thinking and the wording of the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) who was then the government House leader. This was agreed to unanimously by the committee but I emphasize-the minister was in the House a few minutes ago and I wish he were here now-that the thinking and the wording were given to us by the government itself. I quote from the report:
The motion for third reading would read:
"That this bill be now read a third time and passed."
This wording will indicate clearly and unambiguously that the final and most crucial decision relating to the passage of a bill would be taken at the third reading.
Later in that same paragraph I read:
We wish to emphasize that the third reading should always be the decisive stage and that in the case of a highly controversial bill it could be a most crucial debating stage.
All of the talk about what happened on second reading and in Committee of the Whole is not now relevant. If these words mean anything they mean that we are now at the most crucial stage of the debate on Bill C-259. Yet, the House having had only one day of debate at the third reading stage, |he government gave notice of closure under 75C. That is a complete violation of the purpose of third reading which we agreed to in 1968. If there is any willingness on the other side to have some integrity about these things, I submit that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) ought now to stand in his place and ask for withdrawal of his motion.
The second point I seek to make today, Mr. Speaker, is found in the words I have read in a number of newspaper editorials, that pushing this bill through in this way is contempt of Parliament and of the parliamentary process. As the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) pointed out, in Committee of the Whole we had literally no discussion on most of the clauses of the bill. We spent a lot of time discussing clause 1 with its hundreds of pages. We spent an hour or two on clause 2. But the other 74 clauses of Bill C-259 were not discussed for one second in the House of Commons. To ask parliament now to put this measure through its final, crucial, decisive stage under closure, I submit is precisely what some of the editorial writers are saying; it is contempt of Parliament.


David Lewis: Contempt of the people.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And, as my leader suggests, contempt of the people. That is what the

Canadian people are feeling. I am getting this reaction in newspaper editorials and in letters. Questions are put to me, "Isn't there something you can do? Can't you stop this? Does the government, simply because it has a majority, have the right to lord it over Parliament in this way?" I have to answer that it used closure in 1969 to put through rule 75C and now it is using the closure that is part of 75C to put through this bill despite the fact that most of it has not been discussed, as I have already pointed out.
Not having had the opportunity to deal with the bill as it should have been dealt with in Committee of the Whole stage, there would normally be an opportunity on third reading to move a number of amendments for reference back to the committee to discuss some of these points. We in our party have about ten such amendments that we would like to move. I am getting one of them in today. We hope we will get in a second, but I am not sure we will. The other parties have amendments they would like to move, but with closure falling on Friday there is not a chance in, the world of getting the various phases of the bill reconsidered at third reading. In fact, the word "reconsidered" is hardly correct because most of them have not been considered at all.
I submit that we have here a case of utter disregard of the rights of parliament and utter disregard of the rights of the Canadian people for the government to impose this rule at this time. As I say, had there been a couple of weeks debate on third reading there might have been some justification for it. But there had only been one day's debate. Let no member on the other side start to tell me about the 30 or 40 days we had prior to that, because in their own words this is the crucial stage. I am glad to see the Minister of National Defence coming back into the House, perhaps to take a bow, because the words were his. This is a crucial stage, and the opportunity to have the kind of debate that is alluded to at page 433 of the Journals for 1968-69 has been denied.
The third thing I want to say is that in my view this Parliament, with the work load it has, and with the way that work load will increase, does have to find some way to plan and allocate its time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: But it has to be
done in a way that involves agreement, and it has to be done in a way that apportions the time within any period of allocated time so that all of the time will not be spent on one clause and none of it on the rest. But every time the government uses the closure device, uses the big stick, it is admitting it has not been able to solve that problem. It is not the solution of any problem for the bully, for the one with the big stick, just to say, "This is the end of it." Every time this happens, every time the guillotine falls, we not only suffer in Parliament at that very moment, but we are putting off the chance of a sensible solution to this problem of the allocation of time.
So, Sir, for these three reasons that I have produced today, in addition to the three that I put forward on December 2, I urge that this motion be defeated. It violates the purpose of third reading. It is a case of open contempt of Parliament. And it is an admission on the part of the government that it has completely failed to
December 14, 1971

plan the business of the House in any sensible or organized way.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) who today invoked Standing Order 75c to close the debate on the motion for third reading of Bill C-259 is also impinging upon parliamentary freedom. In my opinion, it is a way of tampering with people's freedom.
In fact, why are we against Bill C-259 and the imposition of Rule 75c? Simply because nobody in Canada agrees on that famous Bill C-259. We realize there is confusion everywhere, even on the government side. The former Minister of Communications and the former Minister of National Defence do not agree with the government on Bill C-259. A few moments ago, some hon. members applauded the government's decision to apply Standing Order 75c, without knowing why.
On the other hand, it we consult economists about Bill C-259, we find that those who belong to the Liberal party do not agree at all with those who belong to the Progressive Conservative party and that the latter do not share the opinions of their colleagues in the New Democratic Party. So, there is confusion among economists, and some even claim that Bill C-259 will make things worse instead of improving them.
Even chartered accountants do not agree too much among themselves. One of them, the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Leblanc) expressed in the House yesterday opinions that were completely contrary to those held by the others. As a matter of fact, he attacks everyone without proposing any useful solution.
With regard to the different social classes, the minister referred with pleasure a moment ago to the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), who is a lawyer and who suggests that the government should insist upon a vote on Bill C-259. But the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) is also a lawyer and his opinions are the very opposite of those of the hon. member for Greenwood. So there is confusion among lawyers as well. The hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) supported the decision of the government to apply Standing Order 75c and the minister stated that even editorials are divided. Parliamentary reporters do not agree. Some are in favour of the bill, others are discrediting it, but all are uncertain.
This is why, Mr. Speaker, we cannot support Bill C-259 which is a kind of bible 730 pages long which nobody understands. Indeed, even the minister does not understand it. However, they want us to pass it so that they may tackle the Canadian taxpayers who are working to build the country.
When I refer to economists, for example, I do not hesitate to state quite frankly that the economists who advise us are our people who work in Canada and contribute to its development but do not try to crush it or rob it blind.
We talk about farmers, miners from Noranda, Canadair workers, Montreal and Trois-Rivieres wage earners, in short about all the working classes in our society, including small storekeepers who will pay the piper and go broke as a result of the enactment of Bill C-259. Those are the economists we have. We speak sensibly on their behalf
Income Tax Act
and we request that the government be more understanding.
Because the President of the Privy Council has invoked Standing order 75c, we say he interferes with the rights of parliamentarians. If the vote were free, if we were not asked to vote like sheep, if the members, government and others alike, were entirely free to vote according to the interests of the citizens they represent, then closure would not have to be invoked, nor would we be asked to study confusing bills.
It is all very well to say: We are levying a new tax because the people are rich, as the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was pleased to say over CKAC in Montreal. It is all very well to say to the people: You earn enough, that is why you are being taxed, when everyone, including the Prime Minister, knows that they have not enough money already. But in order to sound funny on radio, one can always tell them: You are rich, that is why we are passing bills to tax you more. That is exactly what the government means by introducing Bill C-259.
In any event, the government takes the responsibility for applying Standing Order 75C. It has the majority. The Prime Minister was saying on the same station that thanks to the majority that it holds, the government is solid. They have solidity, indeed, but only to impose additional taxes. They are solid enough to impose new taxes on the middle class of our society through a bill which will be favourable to the rich without assisting the poor all that much and which to a certain extent, will siphon off a considerable part of the income of the middle classes so that we will end up some day in Canada with a situation where people will be either rich or poor.
That is exactly the purpose behind Bill C-259. The government is taking the responsibility for foisting this bill upon the people of Canada, and that despite the suggestions put forward by the opposition. Although the government says that we will have debated this bill for 50 days, we don't even have the right to make it understand the least little change that should be made and applied for sound economic, social and political policies in Canada. That should be done not by funny speeches delivered over radio or television but through legislation respectful of the human being, of personal initiative and of private enterprise across the country.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am quite certain that questions will be asked on the other side of the House about whether my colleague has requested that I speak today because he is getting to the bottom of the barrel over here.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Oh, no!


Arthur Laing: My defence to that-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: There is no need for any defence.


Arthur Laing: -and my confidence stem from the fact that the barrel has been emptied several times on the other side.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You can do better than that.

December 14, 1971
Income Tax Act


Arthur Laing: I came to this House for the first time in 1949, Mr. Speaker. In those days there was no thought of closure; it was not mentioned. There was a session once a year; the habit was to gather in January and we always hoped to get out of here before the heat of July. There was a tacit agreement among all parties in those days that matters would be debated but that decisions would be taken.
I remember that the late Angus Maclnnis, who I think might be called one of the better parliamentarians of this generation, remarked in one impassioned speech that people say of us that all we do is come here and talk. Mr. Maclnnis said, "My God, that is what they sent us to do- they sent us to come here and talk." That is one aspect of this Parliament. But surely the talking must be to a purpose and surely decisions must be taken so that the executive of this Parliament, which is the government of Canada, can process those things it wants to put into effect and which it thinks at that time are in the public interest and which in succeeding years it will submit to the public to determine whether they want to renew its mandate or whether they want someone else to run their business.


An hon. Member:: See what you have been missing, Pierre.


Arthur Laing: In the years following 1962 when the right hon. gentleman from Saskatchewan sought a majority government here and failed and Mr. Pearson in two successive tries failed, there was a growing feeling in Canada that Parliament was not adequately serving the requirements of the Canadian people. I heard this widely discussed. People were yearning for a government with a majority.


Gerald William Baldwin: Now they wish they had not.


Arthur Laing: They wanted things discussed and after that they wanted things done.


An hon. Member:: But you have not done anything yet.


Arthur Laing: When the history of this century is written, the darkest pages-


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Christmas 1971!


Arthur Laing: -will record the accession to power of dictators and military leaders. They came to power because they convinced their people that democracy had decayed and died; otherwise they would not have succeeded.
I think the people of Canada today want an adequate discussion of this bill and other bills and then they want decisions to be taken. I know this is not a good day for a novitiate like I am to speak in this House because there is a lot of air turbulence. You cannot stay strapped and speak in this House. Among other things, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) said that the government is trying to foist this bill on the people just to try to save its face. If he is confident that he is right in that statement, he should support the passage of the bill at once because if he thinks the government is making a mistake he can go to the public on this measure.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have some concern for the people of Canada. That is why.


Arthur Laing: The government stands behind this bill and its passage and will meet the Leader of the Opposition on the hustings when that time comes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Laing: The Leader of the Opposition has used some very strong language and a great number of adjectives. One is supreme: The bill is incomprehensible.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Nobody questions that.


Arthur Laing: The Leader of the Opposition did not find the bill totally incomprehensible. He found those parts of the bill that give additional payments to the people of the country were very fine indeed. They were readable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Thompson:: What is wrong with that? That is being positive.


Arthur Laing: That is being selective.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Nobody has any difficulty understanding that part of the bill.


Gerald William Baldwin: It stimulates the economy.


Arthur Laing: I suggest that the intelligence of the Leader of the Opposition is exceeded by his sensitiveness to public opinion. No government has any money of its own.


David Réal Caouette: Why not?


Arthur Laing: We tax and we distribute the money according to objectives and policies in the public good. That is the responsibility of government. I think it was Micawber who said that happiness can only come when income is equal to outgo. Apparently the Leader of the Opposition has not yet learned that responsibility or that happiness.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Laing: I would gather that the present occupant of the high office the Leader of the Opposition once had in Nova Scotia would be of the opinion today that while in Nova Scotia he had failed to read Charles Dickens.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh,oh!


Arthur Laing: I think an adequate amount of time must be given to this question. It has been under study in this country for ten years at very considerable expense to the taxpayers of Canada. Committees have gone from one side of the country to the other and invited the people to make their submissions. Submissions have been made here. My desk is piled three feet high with submissions made in regard to this matter.


Mr. Woolliams:: You have not read any of them.


Arthur Laing: I do not want to argue with the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). I know he has a wide reputation as being the second best debater on that side of the House. All the others are first.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
December 14, 1971


Arthur Laing: I think a great deal of time has been offered to the opposition to debate this bill. Yesterday I heard the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) speaking on the bill. He did not say one single word about the bill. He should have been speaking on the motion today because all he was doing yesterday was condemning us for what he termed closure. He had no intention at all of paying attention to any part of the bill.


Gerald William Baldwin: No, no.


Arthur Laing: That has happened in a great number of cases. I do not want to be unfair to members opposite. There was a good debate on agricultural matters and a good debate on the matter of co-operatives. Apart from those, no attention has been paid to any part of this bill in the 44 or 47 days so far.
It is my opinion that the people of Canada will support this government very strongly indeed for the action it has taken to come to a decision now in respect of this matter. If there are industries in Canada which suffer as the result of putting this bill through, they will be heard. Amendments will be made.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Why not do it now?


Arthur Laing: Is the hon. member ready at this time to tell me how the bill should be amended? I do not think he suggested any amendments to the bill.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My interjection was made because the minister is admitting that amendments are necessary. Why not make them before we pass the bill?


Arthur Laing: I am about through, Mr. Speaker. If the economy of the country demands amendments in respect of taxes, any sensible, honest, good government will make those amendments from time to time. I think the people of Canada will support this government for taking action on this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing), the member for Vancouver South, treated us to a mild but quite irrelevant history of his career in Ottawa. He said that the bill is comprehensible to him. If this is so, he joins a select company, about as select a company as he will be with when he soon joins the other place.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: There are far more in the Senate who understand this bill.


Mr. Fairweather:: I was disappointed with the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen). He is usually a convincing debater. Today we were treated to a rather shallow apologia because the government in all its years has made no serious effort to reform the rules of Parliament and bring in any workable system of allocation of time. The House leader said that the government now weighs editorials before it proceeds with motions to allocate time. It is a pity the government did not weigh this bill. It is also a curious way to find out how the people feel about this legislation.
Income Tax Act
The President of the Privy Council also spoke of an inalert opposition, forgetting of course that it was the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) who made the concerted and oft-time lonely attack on the white paper which resulted in many worth-while changes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Do not put your trust in princes is an admonition which should be in the forefront of our minds as we wrestle with the bill which is the subject of the minister's motion. We are being treated to a curious phenomenon! in parliamentary life with the Senate being softened up by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). The minister said: Pass the bill and I will give you some goodies at the next session, all the while stifling any attempt to secure amendments in this place.
It seems curious that though we are to debate third reading under the restriction of an allocation of time motion the Senate is given an undertaking that the bill will be amended at the next session. Surely this is one of the cruder attempts at a quid pro quo. It emphasizes the point that the full implications of the bill are not yet understood, not only by this Parliament, with the exception of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing), but by the government itself. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Roberts) said last weekend, this bill is not tax reform. And as my own leader has suggested, it is a bill conceived in the 'sixties, whereas the dilemma confronting the government is that it finds itself facing the problems of the 'seventies.
I wonder whether supporters of the government ever bother to read the words of their erstwhile great leader, Sir Wilfred Laurier, who said during the navy debate in 1913:
Sir, these rules are to be swept away, they are to be ridden over roughshod, they are to be put aside, and we are to have the gag substituted for them. And what is the pretence? The pretence is that there has been obstruction in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for York-Simcoe rising on a point of order?


John (Moody) Roberts: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am. If the hon. member had been in the House earlier he would have heard me deny that those remarks attributed to me were reported correctly.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: As a matter of fact, I was in the House when the hon. member made his protest. And I was present when he said that this bill is not tax reform.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Moody) Roberts: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I have this morning been in touch with the organizers of the conference. They assure me that the remarks attributed to me were not said.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I know the Prime Minister is uneasy when his parliamentary secretaries go about the country. But I recognize the rule. I respect the Speaker. The hon. member has said he did not say those words and I accept

December 14, 1971
Income Tax Act
that statement. The reservations will be for others, not for me. In any case, many parliamentary secretaries have gone on record as saying in this House that the bill does not meet the needs of tax reform. After all, one man's obstruction is another man's analysis; one man's filibuster is another man's argument. I could put it in another way and say that one man's Laurier is another man's Trudeau.
We are faced with a bill dropped on the people of Canada as a sort of hogmanay present on January 1. When the gift is opened and the fancy paper cleared away, together with the puffery which has gone into the press releases, people will find that what is supposed to be tax reform is not tax reform at all. The gift cannot consist of a game of skill, because no comprehensible rules accompany it. It cannot be a household amenity because the provisions for the transfer of property are in every way restrictive. What it is, is a 1968 tax bill upon which full depreciation has been calculated. And it has very little trade-in value.
An important point was made in an editorial which appeared in the Montreal Gazette of July 24, 1969, in relation to the very issue we are debating today. It had to do with the allocation of time rule which was so clumsily drafted and which was accepted only after debate had been cut off. The editorial writer certainly possessed good forecasting ability. He wrote:
The only real review that any proposed legislation is likely to receive will come not from the majority in Parliament but from the minority. This point was well made a few years ago by a committee of the Canadian Bar Association. "Under democratic institutions," said the committee, "the people accept to be governed by majority decisions, but on condition that the laws should be discussed in the open, traversed by the criticisms of the opposition and be the result of a free and enlightened decision by Parliament."
We have not been able to pursue that because of the restrictions placed upon us by the government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Benson:: Fifty days.


Mr. Yves Forest (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, a little over two years ago, following a report of the Special Committee on Procedure and Organization, our Standing Orders were changed by the House and now provide for a new procedure whereby debates may be limited either through inter-party agreement, or, failing that, through a motion brought before the House by a minister.
While the change of procedure did not receive unanimous support at that time, it was almost unanimously recognized that no modern Parliament claiming to be efficient and functional can hold indefinite and obviously unduly long debate on any subject, however controversial or complicated. It was also recognized that when a certain time has elapsed, during which all views, ideas and suggestions have been aired and rehashed, a final decision must be reached and the voice of the majority of the people's representatives must be heard.
Besides, it has long been recognized in almost all legislatures of the free world, and particularly in Westminster, where the mother of Parliaments sits, that nowadays the time of the House or the legislature can no longer be wasted in repetitive debate with the sole purpose of delay-
(Mr. Fairweather.l
ing the making of a decision or of upsetting the government's legislative program.
It is about time that we in Canada show the same political maturity and that the official opposition particularly should stop living in the past. Circumstances have changed and this kind of strategy does not get public approval any more. Anyway, in this case, it is a long shot indeed.
The population of Canada now thinks that there has been enough talking and that time has come to make a decision and to go on to other things, other priorities.
Mr. Speaker, after all the members of the opposition had to expect that those sections of the Standing Orders would be applied some day. They are applied for the first time with respect to a bill and it seems to me that there could not have been a better opportunity, a more obvious situation for invoking Standing Order 75c in order to limit in a very sensible way debate on Bill C-259, which has been before the Commons about 50 days on second reading, in the committee on the whole and now on the motion on third reading which will allow at least five or five and a half days of debate. And all that considering that no agreement could be reached with the opposition parties which disagree and have assumed different attitudes. By the way, some members of those parties voted with the government on December 2.
Mr. Speaker, it has been said that the definite text of the bill was tabled in the House only last June, that this text was long, complicated and hard to understand and that numerous amendments had been made to it in the course of preparation. But the major changes, that is those relating to capital gains, corporate income and income of co-operatives, have been debated and studied for years, following the Carter report, the white paper and comprehensive studies by committees of both Chambers. As a matter of fact, everything has been said and repeated on all aspects of the subject, and this many times.
Obviously, if the bill is to become law on January 1 next, as the government has announced a long time ago, and in order to dispel the uncertainty, an end had to be put to this systematic obstruction, the obvious object of which was simply to prevent the House from making a decision. Besides, the Montreal Star of December 3, 1971, said that it was significant that the efforts of several Conservative members were not aimed at improving the situation of low-income people, but at obstructing approval of provisions forcing some corporations and richer Canadians to pay a more equitable part of taxes.
It says also that the country would have been faced with a longer period of waiting and uncertainty and of course that could but have ill effects on the economy.
Mr. Speaker, an editorial of the Toronto Daily Star of December 2 followed the same line of thought.
Today people ask us to take less time on discussions and to proceed with the study of important legislation such as bills on agriculture and the family income security system and expect those who have been elected to govern do just that, once there have been more than sufficient opportunity, such as in the present case, of debating the matter, however complex it is.
In forcing the government to invoke Standing Order 75c to limit the debate in a more than reasonable way, the
December 14, 1971

opposition did not get the support of the public or the press, at least not in my province, even if generally speaking, in such cases, there is a tendency to blame the government.
For instance, a well-known member of the press gallery, Mr. Charles Lynch, supporting the government, wrote in the Gazette of last December 2, and I quote:
In the matter of the tax reforms, the government is not telling Parliament to go to hell-it is denying the right of opposition parties to tell the government to go to hell.

Mr. Speaker, for years now a tax reform has been demanded, and since the government had the courage to bring it in, it was to be foreseen that any legislation to amend the tax structure would give rise to controversy, because if millions of taxpayers will pay less or no tax, others will be charged more. However, the government has accepted responsibility for such a bill. It has laid it before the House and everybody who wished to be heard was able to do so.
Besides, this reform is not indefeasible and like any important bill of general application it could be amended in the light of experience and of rulings made regarding its interpretation.
Mr. Speaker, after a few more days of general discussion at the third reading stage, it will be in the interest of the country and of Parliament to put it to a vote.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, having been accused by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing) of being the second best debater in the House after all my other colleagues, I must answer that I felt that he flattered me but at the same time left himself in a hole. If I am the second best debater after all my other colleagues, I suggest that even if the hon. member is an egotist he must be third best to me, and if his colleagues are better than he is he must be fourth to them.
Today we have seen the House leader for the government on the defensive. We have heard him quote figures which were a distortion of the worst kind. To me this is an infamous day for Parliament, a day of infamy for Canada, particularly for a new country where freedom should flourish, a country that is healthy and fresh. We find that the government, by implementing this kind of closure, is turning back the chronometer of freedom, the kind of freedom on which our traditions were built, a thousand years in order to prove the omnipotence of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). He is able to enforce closure by his own omnipotence and by use of what I would call his basic herd-and we have heard a lot lately about the basic herd. He claims that he and they were given a mandate to do any infamous thing, even to the point of implementing an incomprehensible tax bill. On television the Prime Minister said: "I have the right to govern for five years and I can do anything in that time. Under the mandate that the people gave me I can implement a bill that has 707 pages, which has had 135 amendments, and ram it through by the method of closure".


Mr. Trudeau:: When did I say that?
Income Tax Act


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: After today we have a half day on Wednesday, a day on Thursday and a half day on Friday. As pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), third reading under the new rules is the most important part of the debate on any bill that comes before the House.


Mr. Gibson:: The public have had this one for three
years.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Let me answer that immediately. They have been talking about tax reform for ten years, but let me just deal with that. We had a chance to study the white paper. When it was put into legislation, even the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) said, if I may quote his words, that che white paper was changed when the government brought forward its legislation.
If we had been given the opportunity we could have studied the bill, its 707 pages and 76 clauses, in a standing committee of the House of Commons. Experts could have been called to give information and knowledge to parliamentarians who would then have been able to debate the bill with knowledge and vote on it with knowledge. But closure is used to force through an incomprehensible tax bill containing 76 clauses and 707 pages, along with 135 amendments. The government is thrusting this tax measure upon Parliament and upon the people, creating a new tax system that is so incomprehensible that even our best tax experts in Canada have been denied the right to question or to determine what this monster contains.
This tax system will change our whole basic philosophy in Canada upon which freedom rests. It matters not, says the government; get it through Parliament. It does not matter whether we understand it; just get it through, force it through the Senate. We heard the swan song this afternoon of the hon. member for Vancouver South who was singing himself all the way to the other place.
First, the government brought forth the monstrous white paper. It was changed. These changes, unexplained, were then drafted into legislation. What should have taken place is that we should have had a study made by a standing committee, as I said. But this is the kind of democracy that we have under the present Prime Minister. What does it matter that this bill is ambiguous? What does it matter if no one can understand it?
However, that is not the definition of the Trudeau democracy. Over the weekend he has coined a new phrase or, rather, he has used an old phrase and given it a new meaning. His democracy is "buster's democracy". It is buster's way; it is buster's method; it is buster's muzzling of Parliament; and it is buster's way of indirectly muzzling even the Senate. The Prime Minister has said: "You have asked for tax reform and, buster, you have got it. You asked for closure under rule 76C and, buster, you have got it". That is what is called "buster's democracy".
Parliament did not ask for rule 75C; it was forced upon Parliament by closure. And, buster, this institution got it. The public did not ask for 707 pages of a tax measure or for the amendments. But buster's democracy forced it upon the people. That is what they call "buster's democracy", the old blockbuster.
On December 8, following the first closure motion, this institution went through the farcical and mechanical pro-

December 14, 1971
Income Tax Act
cess of voting on the 76 clauses of the bill. I think the Minister of Finance will agree with me on that. I quote the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), who said: "What a farce to spend four hours the other night voting on sections when I would say 90 per cent-being kind-of Members of Parliament did not know what the sections contained or what they were voting on". Members of Parliament did not know what the sections of the bill contained or what they were voting on. The basic herd opposite supported the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance and voted for the bill. That is what you could call "buster" democracy.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The government does not understand the bill. I know it does not.


Edgar John Benson: I think the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) is heckling.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: No one understands what was voted for. Not even the Minister of Finance and all his experts comprehended the many changes that were introduced, and 90 per cent or more of the members of this House were forced to go through this mechanical procedure in Committee of the Whole without knowing what they were voting for or what the ramifications of the tax measure would be. When Parliament voted in favour of this measure the other day, it behaved in the worst possible way. I have never seen Parliament behave worse. The members voted for a measure they did not know about. Now the bill is to be sent to the Senate. The other place will have a chance to debate the bill for a day or two and then get on with the job of putting its rubber stamp on it.


Mr. McGrath:: What an insult to the Senate.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: This is legislation through ignorance and by ignorance and goes against all the principles of jurisprudence. After all, ignorance of the law is no defence. However, that seems to mean nothing to this government.
What we are doing today is not democratic; it is not even parliamentary. The Prime Minister and those who support him personify ignorance of the law. They have created nothing but contempt for this institution and now they threaten to create further contempt for the other place. The other place has been told what to do, how long to do it in and when to do it. It is to do it regardless of whether or not this monstrous tax system makes sense. I submit that this bill will completely destroy our economy and our way of life.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the Senate was created to protect minorities and to guard against errors made in this place. It is to scrutinize bills passed by this place and, when mistakes are discovered, to send them back here for consideration. If one looks at history one will see that when the Income Tax Act was first introduced the Senate made many changes. The bill was sent back to this place and the changes were concurred in. What chance will the Senate have in a day and a half to study adequately this monstrous bill?


James Aloysius McGrath: The government has put a gun to the head of the Senate.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It would have been more honest if the government had brought in a single bill repealing the former Income Tax Act and then said: We have the right to enact new tax laws by order in council. At least that course would have been more honest. The government would have said to Parliament, if it had brought in such a measure: We do not want you to know what the law is, we intend to enact it in secret, we are bringing in a bill that will give us that right. The present system appears to be democratic but this is merely an illusion. The government appears to be saying: Look, you had a chance to vote on the different sections of the bill in the Committee of the Whole House. Would it not have been more honest, as I said, to bring in one bill to repeal the old Income Tax Act and then bring in an additional bill which would have given the government the right to impose taxes through Order in Council? That procedure would at least have been more honest. As it is, nobody understands this complex bill and what it will do.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Come on, buster. You can do better than that.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: This is a dgy of infamy by reason of the procedure now being followed on the third reading stage of this bill. This is the second time that the guillotine is to be used. This constitutes the implementation of a form of totalitarianism which, through subtle methods, attempts to enforce the will of a few against the will of Parliament. If Parliament is to make decisions, it must make intelligent decisions based on the decisions of individuals. The few hours' debate in Committee of the Whole the other night when the guillotine was imposed was nothing but a mockery, a mockery of this institution, a mockery of freedom and a mockery of freedom of speech.


James Aloysius McGrath: Shame!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Take him away. Take him out.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, in his contribution to the debate today the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) mentioned me. He was quite right in saying that I supported the government on the motion to end debate on the committee stage. I did not do so because I approved of Bill C-259; quite the reverse is the truth. It is my opinion that, as a result of that bill, we will wind up with a tax system which will still be grossly unfair and which will bear much too heavily on the lower and middle income groups.
On that occasion, Mr. Speaker, and I am speaking of when the first motion was introduced, the debate in committee had already lasted some 30 days. I received the assurance of my colleague, the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) who had taken an active part in the committee stage discussions as well as in all other stages when Bill C-259 was before the House, that the opposition had had ample opportunity to present its main points during the debate. It was his view, and I accepted it, that further debate on that particular stage would be repetitive.
December 14, 1971

The value of that debate, of course, was fully illustrated by the withdrawal by the Minister of Finance of the provisions respecting the taxing of co-operatives and credit unions. I think that was a credit to parliamentary procedure, inasmuch as public opinion, largely aroused by the opposition, I believe, and supported by some members of the government party, produced substantial and beneficial changes in the bill. I wanted to make it clear then and I want to make it clear now that I do not oppose in principle the limitation of the time of debates, even if you want to describe this limitation by the harsher expression, closure.
I believe that the conduct of parliamentary business and, indeed, the welfare of democracy sometimes require the government to use its majority to terminate a debate that has gone on long enough. It should, of course, do everything in its power to work out a consensus with the parties. That is the best policy and I hope it will be adopted when possible. I think that closure to end debate in committee of the whole was justified. On another occasion, that of the flag debate, closure was justified because that debate had dragged on day after day and nothing new was being said or could be said. Therefore I voted in favour of closure then and I would do so again in the same circumstances. I may have been wrong, but I certainly was not irrational when I supported the government in the proposal to terminate debate in Committee of the Whole.
Let me make it clear that I take a different view of the present motion. The most important and, indeed, the crucial phase of debate under our present practice is that phase we embark on during the third reading stage. I do not think it is enough to confine that debate to four days. Indeed, I think that this limitation deprives the opposition of some of its basic rights, among them being the right to present to the public alternative policies by way of a series of reasoned amendments. I think this right is being taken away by the motion that is now before the House and therefore I think the rights of the opposition in that respect are being circumscribed. This, in my opinion, is in no way a justified, useful or valid application of the rule regarding allocatioi) of time. In my opinion that rule is being abused. This motion constitutes an abuse of the rules of this House. It is an abuse of the legislative rights of the opposition. I speak for my colleague, the hon. member for Waterloo, who shared my opinion in the previous debate, when I say that we cannot and will not support the motion.
May I summarize the position I take. The issue, in my view, should not be whether closure is always wrong or always right. The issue ought to be whether it is justified by the circumstances, whether it is necessary in the interests of parliamentary rights and whether or not it is being used to abuse and curtail the rights of minorities. On this occasion it is my view that closure is being used to curtail unreasonably and unjustly the rights of minorities. I therefore oppose the motion.


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, if anything can demonstrate the sad condition into which this Parliament has fallen, it has to be these two debates on allocation of time motions. It seems that the only time
Income Tax Act
we have had a substantial number of members in the House listening to debate and the only time we have had debate we could listen to have been occasions of procedural motions. This would seem to be an indication of the failure of the opposition to make the House of Commons a meaningful place for debate to which the country would listen.
We have had a number of rather unfounded charges slipping through the House of Commons of late. The most notable was by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and is to be found at page 10078 of Hansard for Thursday, December 2, 1971. He said:
The bill-
Bill C-259.
-was not distributed to our principal financial critic until two or three days before the House reconvened, and the rest of us did not receive a printed copy of the bill until after the House had resumed.
Now, what are the facts? The facts are that on July 12 the bill was distributed to all members of the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I repeat for the benefit of hon. members opposite that on July 12 the bill was distributed to all members of the House.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker I did not get it on July 12. I did not get it until after the House had assembled. The member must take my word on that.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the information I have-and I have done some research on this-is that the bill was distributed to all members of the House of Commons and Senate on July 12.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, we heard this sort of thing a minute ago. Is the hon. member questioning the word of the hon. member for Peace River or is he prepared to accept the word of the hon. member for Peace River?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has made his statement and the hon. member for Peace River has made his statement. If the Leader of the Opposition is asking whether the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River is questioning the word of the hon. member for Peace River, this is debate.


John Mercer Reid: I want to make quite clear that the bill was distributed on July 12 and that a number of copies were distributed to hon. members. I went to the trouble of checking when my bill came. I am certainly not known as a government financial muscle man and I assumed the bill must have been made available to members of the opposition at the same time. I can understand why the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) might not be able to find his copy because he is not as adequately served by staff as some hon. members opposite such as the leaders of the opposition parties. I cannot understand how the Leader of the Opposition, who has sufficient staff, could lose the bills in his office. I can see them going

December 14, 1971
Income Tax Act
around tippy-toe trying to find a hiding spot for a bill of this size.
If members of the Conservative party were not prepared for the debate on second reading and on the Committee of the Whole stage, after having had the whole summer, they certainly were alone in this because every lawyer and every chartered accountant I know had access to the bill and was working on it. I am surprised that the lawyers, accountants and supporters of the Conservative party did not make copies available to them, or that copies were not obtained from the distribution office or from the government.
Another matter which should be dealt with is the question of who did all the talking on the second reading and Committee of the Whole stages. Who was unprepared? The hon. member for Edmonton West, who I think has a very good grasp of the principles of the bill, spoke 40 times. The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) spoke 16 times and the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) spoke 12 times. I did not bother counting the contributions the House leader for the Tory Party made because he never spoke once on the bill.
What we are debating is the question of how much time is enough time to pass legislation. During the past year we have had three examples of legislation going through the Committee of the Whole. We had the government reorganization bill, the Emergency War Measures Act and this bill. What about the results in each case? Each case took at least a month of the time of the House of Commons. In the case of the government reorganization bill two amendments were forced by the opposition. One made the Minister of the Environment the Minister of Fisheries, and the other required that when a Minister of State is appointed there is to be a two-hour debate in the House of Commons. I do not know whether the opposition feels that after six weeks of debate these are significant amendments. I think they are a waste of time.
We must also look at what transpired in respect of the War Measures Act. Not one amendment was accepted. This was another waste of time. The bill should have been sent to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs instead of taking up the time of the House in Committee of the Whole.
What has happened is that the role of Parliament has changed. The only thing that has not changed is the opposition members. This same old party has remained as it has been in the last 50 years. The members are condemning themselves forever to staying in the opposition because they do not understand how Canadian society in the 'sixties and 'seventies works and why they will not win the next election. The House of Commons is a forum for debate. The question to decide is how long shall a debate continue, how long should the debate go on, given the quality of debate we get. I suggest that any member opposite who reads the debates on the Committee of the Whole stage and discovers how many speeches in point of fact were directed to the clauses under discussion will find that very little of the debate was really germane or to the point.


An hon. Member:: What are you speaking about?


John Mercer Reid: I am speaking of the allocation of time motion. At least I am on the point. Then the question is, when shall a decision be taken? I thought the comments made by the House leader of the New Democratic Party were particularly well taken. In effect he said that this Parliament has been a failure as it had been unable to allocate its time in any meaningful way, any sensible way or in any way in which the Canadian public could take at least a simple sense of pride. The point is that once we get on a piece of legislation there is no way to bring debate to a conclusion unless the opposition determines it. Whether or not a debate comes to a conclusion has nothing at all to do with whether an amendment of substance is accepted, as witness the two cases I gave before of the government reorganization bill and the Emergency War Measures Act. There must be some mechanism for bringing a debate to a conclusion. The sooner we work out in this chamber an allocation of time, the less we will have to go through uncomfortable scenes of this nature.
I point out to the House leader of the Conservative Party that there is power within Standing Order 75B, according to some readings of it, for the three opposition parties to determine when the debate should close. If there was any other motive on the other side except an attempt to extend the debate indefinitely they certainly would have been able to come to an agreement with the government under rule 75B which would have had the effect of concluding debate in a reasonable time. The reason we are implementing 75C is that there is no agreement between parties opposite and the government. So we have a failure of Members of Parliament and particularly the parties of this Parliament.
We have a responsible system of government. A responsible system of government implies that parties will take positions, will debate and then reach a conclusion. We were sent here to talk, certainly, but the other half of the equation, that we are also sent here to take decisions, should not be forgotten.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, some of us have listened with considerable interest to the Fascist-tinged philosophy of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) who just sat down. Clearly he has not the slightest comprehension of the purpose of Parliament or of the parliamentary process, but many of us assume that his ideas are exactly those of many members of the government party who sit not only at the back but on the front benches. His strange reference to the debate in committee being irrelevant seemed to me at least to be a reflection on Your Honour as it is my understanding that debate in this chamber, in committee stage or at any other stage, is required to be relevant. But that means nothing to the hon. member.
It is very interesting that the hon. member who has just taken his seat brought up the question of when closure should be applied. That is a good question. Clearly one time it should be instituted is in the case of a national emergency. I do not think there would be any argument about that; a debate in such circumstances is something we would have to forgo, as indeed members of any Canadian parliament should. But in this case we are not
December 14, 1971

confronted with any national emergency so far as the tax bill is concerned, so that excuse is clearly out.
The next reason for closure in any form is when debate is unnecessarily prolonged and obstructive. It is said that the government has the right to get its business through. We have heard that, and I do not think anybody would disagree with that. But when a debate should be brought to a conclusion is not a matter of fact but a matter of opinion depending on the circumstances of the case. Earlier in the debate this afternoon the government House leader said that we have debated this matter for 46 days. This was a debate on a bill which is the largest, most massive and most all-pervading piece of legislation that has ever been presented to any Canadian parliament. It consists of 705 pages and it affects directly every single person in this country in one way or another. Nothing could be more complex, and since Parliament commenced discussion in September hundreds of amendments have been made. The full content of this enormous bill was not known until last Tuesday after closure had been introduced.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Since everybody has been quoted here today, let me quote from a letter I received. On November 17-I hope I will get time for the interruptions from the government side.


Gerald William Baldwin: Squeaking kewpie dolls.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: On November 17 I received a letter from the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray) in reply to a request I made to the minister asking for clarification of certain of the proposed tax measures affecting credit unions. I asked what the effect of the proposals would be. The minister replied, and his letter is not written in confidence or restricted in any way:
Unfortunately, it is not possible for my department to compute the tax that would be payable under the tax reform proposals, as the proposed changes are not yet fully known. In particular, the amount of reserves that will be allowed for tax purposes is not yet known. Officials of the Department of Finance may, however, be able to give you an idea of the comparative tax liabilities under the two systems.
That letter was written on November 17 long after the debate was well under way and apparently the government did not know. So it is ridiculous to say that the bill was known to Members of Parliament either on September 1 or June 30 or on July 12. I certainly never received my copy of the bill, nor was it brought to my attention in any way, until I returned here after Parliament was recalled. I do not know how the government members managed to obtain their copies so early. There must have been some kind of preference as we have seen before. I am sure the Minister of Communications (Mr. Stanbury) knows all about that. I am not a wearer of the "Purple" as is the Minister of Communications but I suppose it is "Purple" second class. However, perhaps the minister realized that.
The government has three firsts on this bill: the first time in history that closure has ever been used to bring in a tax bill, the first time that such an enormous piece of legislation has been presented to Parliament, and the first
Income Tax Act
time closure has been invoked before all the contents of the bill were known to Parliament.


Gerald William Baldwin: How about the first time we have had such a Minister of Finance?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: That goes without saying. The government says that 46 days of discussion of the bill is enough. No chartered accountant-and I defy the minister or any of his colleagues to bring forth a genuine chartered accountant who is not in some way attached to the government retinue-will agree that anybody in Canada understands the bill. The bill is clearly a creation of the civil service. As one of the government's supporters in the press gallery said the other morning over the CBC a couple of days ago, it is an honest attempt by the civil service to reform the tax system.
I doubt very much that the minister himself can answer all the questions on the bill. I remember the time when the white paper was first presented and we were in the railway committee room asking the minister questions on it. As I recall, the minister was able to answer a few of the questions but most of them he referred to Mr. Bryce, the deputy minister. That is wnat happened. I doubt very much that the minister can answer some of the questions now. For instance, I have one right here. This is what we are talking about, Mr. Speaker.


Edgar John Benson: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was not in the railway committee room when the white paper was presented.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I distinctly remember asking the Minister of Finance a question to which he replied that he was not familiar with that part of the bill and that Mr. Bryce could answer the question.


Edgar John Benson: I was not there.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The minister must have a very short memory; if his memory fails that badly it is good evidence that he should not be Minister of Finance.
I believe the minister is one of those who have said that this bill is so readily understandable that anybody on the street can read it and understand it. There are hundreds of unintelligible sections in the bill but a typical one is section 192(10). I would like to have the minister stand up in the House and explain this one to us. We did not get a chance to ask him questions on it on account of closure. It reads as follows:
The assumption is made that the amount of the earnings for the control period that was available for payment of dividends of each corporation, other than the control corporation, control of which was acquired by the controlling corporation by virtue of its acquisition of control of the controlled corporation, were computed as if each corporation that controlled the chain corporation, at the time the controlling corporation acquired control of the controlled corporation, had acquired control of the chain corporation at that time.
Here is something that can be safely said to be just as clear as mud. Is it the kind of thing that anybody could read and understand?
Finally, we should ask ourselves why closure is necessary. We discussed when closure should be invoked and when it should not and how much time we should allow for the discussion of the parts of the bill that have not yet

December 14, 1971
Income Tax Act
been discussed. But why closure? Who will be hurt if the bill is not made law by the first of the year? What difference will it make if it is delayed a day, a week, a month or even a year as most provinces want? Who will be hurt? The answer is, only the egos of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, nothing else, and that is just about it. I know one can see members over there "laughing and scratching" about our complaints concerning the bill being pushed through by closure just the same as the Liberal members did in the pipeline debate. Nothing has changed, only the faces. They all laughed and said that the public think it is great. It is strange that some of the members as well as the Minister of Finance have pretty short memories. Look at what happened to the government of that day under the Right Hon. C. D. Howe. Mr. Howe had little regard for the parliamentary process but had a good deal of ability in many other ways, which is more than can be said for this outfit. The same thing happened-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, the most glaring error this government is making is to believe that the Canadian Parliament is a tool that it can manipulate as it wishes if it is in its own interest.
Mr. Speaker, some may find these words rather harsh, but I say very frankly they are fundamentally true. On account of the opposition's frustration, Canadians are presently living a very sad moment, namely the downfall of a government which replaces dynamism, efficiency and imagination in its bills by force and haste to have them passed in order to avoid too much criticism. In short, the quicker the tax reform bill is passed, the less time people will have to say what they think about it, and the quicker they will have to swallow it.
Some government members spoke on the motion under Standing Order 75C this afternoon, but not one succeeded in raising a point which would have prompted me to support the motion.
Mr. Speaker, the members of the opposition are charged-the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Forest) did so a while ago-with filibustering. As a result of the alleged filibuster by the opposition, the government goes to the other extreme-provided there is such a filibuster-and is taking a drastic step, closure.
It would perhaps be appropriate, Mr. Speaker, to ask ourselves what a filibuster is. In my opinion, even if my knowledge on the matter is quite limited, a filibuster is a kind of voluntary and excessive delay of House proceedings to the extent that any progress is practically impossible. A filibuster means to me that nothing works in Parliament and that the loss of time or lack of progress are not in the interests of Parliament, the government or the people.
On the basis of the definition, what is happening in the House? Is there a filibuster?
If it were proved to me that I or anyone else have been filibustering, I would agree with invoking closure because I do believe in Parliament and the efficiency of the member's role.
But, Mr. Speaker, that is not the case. There has been no filibustering in this House since the start of this debate. There have been many speeches, at times useless, such as we heard this afternoon. You seemed impatient, Mr. Speaker, and, believe me, I shared your impatience.
But, when we start a job, be it a tax reform bill, a bill on invoking the war measures act, a bill on the reorganization of the government or any other bill, what is its evolution, what are the various stages, outside those provided for by the procedure?
First of all, this bill came to hon. members for a preliminary study. Then, according to the procedure, there are different stages. Once the bill has been analysed and examined closely, members of all parties are called upon to move amendments. Once all this has been done time has come for adoption of the bill. One thinks about carrying the bill only after the members have had time to study, to examine closely, to analyse and to try to improve it by amendments.
However, since we began to discuss this bill the government did not accept any amendment from the opposition. Last week we moved an amendment in favour of small income people. In any event, it is for those people that the members of the Social Credit Party are in this House. The purpose of our amendment was to give workers, farmers and small income people generally the same rights as professionals enjoy, that is, that they be allowed to deduct part of the cost of their equipment, as the latter is absolutely essential to them if they are to make a living.
What happened, Mr. Speaker? Because of an archaic, ridiculous procedure, the vote taken in committee of the whole was a bingo. Because of this procedure, some government members voted against the proposals. Then they turn around and tell us that Creditiste and other opposition members accomplish a useless task, that they filibuster and waste everybody's time. Our main duty as members, what we are paid for, is to see to it that bills serve the best interest of Canadians. This is why we moved an amendment.
Today, closure is brought in, and we are told: You have no right to move an amendment, you are delaying business of the House.
Mr. Speaker, either we believe in Parliament, or we do not. If we do have faith in Parliament, we shall accept positive amendments coming from either side of the House.
As for me, I am interested in considering any amendment coming from the government and I have examined with interest those brought forward by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). But why should the opposition demonstrate such an honest and objective attitude towards what emanates from the government whereas government members consider whatever comes from the opposition to be wrong. Why? Because the government has no faith in Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, the government consider that closure is the best way for them to avoid debate and improve their bills.

December 14, 1971

Income Tax Act
However, they have resorted to Standing Order 75c, denying us any amendments, complaining when we speak, when we carry out our duty imposing closure on the debate in committee of the whole. The government is now imposing closure at the third reading stage. We shall have three and a half days at the most to study 790 pages and propose amendments, if that is ever possible.
Once closure has been imposed in the House of Commons, the government will do the same in the Senate and tell them: Do what you will, this bill must be passed but by the Is1 of January. This means that senators will not be able to propose any amendment, for if they do the bill will have to be referred back to the House of Commons. And then, it is impossible, from a technical point of view, for this bill to be passed by New Year's. In other words, the government will befoisting upon the Senate the same bill that they will have rammed through the House of Commons. So, what is the Senate? A useless institution, as I believe it is! If the government have faith in it, as they told the Senate, let them prove it to us and stop fooling it. Otherwise, they admit that we are right.
The Minister of Finance told senators the other day: Pass this bill before Christmas and I promise that afterwards you will be allowed to bring amendments to it. Why not, then, propose amendments right now? What urgency is there to pass this legislation before New Year's? In any case, there is not enough time until then to achieve the just society.
In short, the government has lost control of the situation in taking a wrong decision in the first place, that is in bringing in this overly thick, complicated and exhaustive legislation. They want us to discuss a 790-page bill as we would discuss a 12-page one. There is a big difference between the two. It is impossible to spend so little time on such a bulky bill. Today the government is held down by its first decision. This is why it finds itself compelled to sink deeper every day into the repercussion of this bad decision. It invoked closure on the debate at the stage of the committee of the whole and has done it again today. Tomorrow, it will drop the guillotine in the Senate and say: Now we have the just society.
I think that Canadian democracy as we experience it now in Parliament is in danger because the government thinks Parliament and the Senate are its servants, whereas we say Parliament and the Senate should be at the service of the Canadian people. It is not the same thing, Mr. Speaker. There is a great difference.
If at least a reform of Parliament was under consideration so that the government could not be defeated by any other means but a non confidence motion, each member, of whatever party, could express himself and vote freely according to his conscience without fear of defeating the government. We would then be interested in agreeing on time limits, since government members would be doing the same work as opposition members. However, I understand why closure provisions are invoked: government members envy us because we are able to do our work while they are prevented to do theirs on account of their being gagged all year long.


Colin David Gibson: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most important debates in the history of the Canadian House of Commons. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that as a result of this debate the majority of the House of Commons will demonstrate that they can govern Canada and that they shall govern Canada.
The subject of the motion is whether or not the majority of the Members of Parliament can place a time limit on debate. If the fate of government legislation is left to the whims of opposition members at this important time in our history, then we shall all be actors in the slow but gradual decay of Parliament. The House of Commons will no longer represent a forum for public debate but will flounder and disintegrate as an anachronistic tower of Babel, scorned by the Canadian people.


Mr. Peters:: At least you had a better speech writer than the last one.


Colin David Gibson: As time goes on Parliament will at last be conscious of the clock. The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) might bear that in mind. At last the House of Commons has climbed to the same high level of debate as is practised in the House of Commons at Westminster. In the Mother of Parliaments there are opposition leaders skilled in the cut and thrust of debate. The Conservative House leader might well study the rules of Parliament as I am sure he knows very well that in Westminster a time allocation rule goes into effect as regularly as Big Ben on the hourly note. The really shallow hypocrisy of this debate should be disclosed to the Canadian people.
I urge members of the opposition to support this motion as do all other parliamentarians in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, in the Inter-Parliamentary Union and throughout all western democratic institutions, or they will find themselves within that narrow band of dissident minorities who are not moving with the times. I plead for removal of obstruction and delay in debate. I attack outdated rules of antiquity. I plead the case for efficiency in this House, not gamesmanship. I support a system of planned debate based on reasonable time limits-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Does that include reading speeches?


Colin David Gibson: -not repetitive irrelevant criticism. I advocate a system of debate which is structured to improve the law, not calculated to fill up pages of Hansard with repetition. I seek fair play in the great chamber, the House of Commons, this chamber which is the greatest assembly of Canadians from coast to coast.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Would the hon. member tell me whether that is his speech?


Colin David Gibson: Yes, I swear on a stack of Bibles that I wrote every word of it. Without reform how can we proceed to pass urgently needed legislation?


Mr. Paproski:: Those are not Bibles; those are tax bills.


Colin David Gibson: Mr. Speaker, our pledge to the people was to legislate, not to procrastinate; to govern, not to hedge; to act, not to evade. For these reasons I urge speedy

December 14, 1971
Income Tax Act
passage of the tax reform bill. Democracy means rule by a majority of votes, not obstruction by a minority of votes.
If one examines the records of the provincial legislatures from coast to coast in Canada today one finds that no provincial assembly tolerates filibuster and delay which have the effect of hindering democratic, legislative progress. However, Mr. Speaker, because of antiquated procedural practices, not all of which are the fault of the opposition, the legislative process in the House of Commons sometimes grinds to a halt. The opposition obstructs, be it Conservative, NDP or Creditiste or even Liberal. The rules have not provided proper time limits for debate in the past. At last we have passed a reasonable rule creating limitation of debate.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to say that fundamentally we will all have made a great contribution to the advancement of Canadian parliamentary democracy by supporting this motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being 4.09 o'clock p.m., the two hours provided for consideration of the motion now before the House under Standing Order 75C have now expired. Accordingly, under the terms of the said Standing Order it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put every question necessary to dispose of the said motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion under Standing Order 43 concerning a matter that was raised in the House of Commons yesterday in connection with a study that was made of the impact of regional development grants and regional development incentive grants, with particular reference to the province of Quebec. May I just say during my preliminary remarks that I sent notice of the fact that I was going to introduce this motion to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand), to the government House leader and to the other House leaders in order that all parties would have an opportunity to consider this matter before I raised it in this House.
There were nine fundamental criticisms raised of the regional development program in this study which I feel deserve consideration by all members of the House. Therefore, I move:
That the subject matter of a special study of the programs of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion by the Quebec Federation of Labour be referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development for study and report thereon.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Regina East under the terms of Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous agreement. The hon. member's motion cannot be put.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
According to the second paragraph of the left hand side column on page 10406 of yesterday's Hansard, the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Leblanc) had this to say, and I quote:
Well, CICA members-and I commend them for it-came here to give a full day's course to hon. members and that, at their own expense. I do not recall having seen a single Creditiste member attend this course. Where were they? How interested are they in this bill? How can they understand it, since they don't even go to the official information sources-
This statement, Mr. Speaker, is absolutely false and misleading unless the hon. member for Laurier has deliberately misinformed the House-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is a matter of debate between the hon. member for Shefford and the hon. member who, in his opinion, has made the statement to which he refers.
The hon. member for Shefford wishes to rise in accordance with a standing order allowing him to raise the question of privilege. The hon. member should know that he must give notice to the Chair to that effect and having received none, I do not think, under the circumstances, that he can rise on a question of privilege.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister a question arising out of the upward movement of the Canadian dollar from 921 cents since it was unpegged to something over par now with the U.S. dollar. Is it the policy of the right hon. gentleman's government to allow the Canadian dollar to float freely and cleanly in relationship to the U.S. dollar and other world currencies?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the government propose to take any measures at all to prevent the Canadian dollar from moving significantly above par with the United States dollar? I ask this question particularly in view of the declared intention of the United States government to devalue the United States dollar and the consequential upward pressures that this will put upon the Canadian dollar.

December 14, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, I take it that we would not need to take any particular measures. If the United States did devalue its dollar, it is likely that our free float would move downwards.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Might I ask the right hon. gentleman to consult with the Minister of Finance or with somebody, such as the President of the Treasury Board, to straighten him out on what the effect would be on the Canadian dollar of a devaluation of the United States dollar, because it would be precisely the opposite of what the right hon. gentleman said.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is hardly a question. The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting consultations between ministers and I would not think that that is a proper supplementary. The Leader of the Opposition might wish to rephrase his question.



INQUIRY AS TO GOVERNMENT POLICY TO ASSIST


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Then might I ask the right hon. gentleman whether he has any policy to put into effect to assist the industries that are being prejudicially affected by the upward movement of the Canadian dollar, particularly in view of the very distinct possibility that this will continue in light of developments. Has the right hon. gentleman a policy to put into effect, or is he prepared to let these policies go down the drain, as they have during the past year or so?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for York South.



ALLEGED INTENTION OF UNITED STATES TO DEVALUE DOLLAR-DISCUSSION WITH PRESIDENT NIXON

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question on the same subject. In view of the report from the Azores that the President of the United States and the President of France have issued a communique saying that the intention is to have the United States dollar devalued and other currencies revalued upwards, may I ask the Prime Minister whether this subject was discussed during the Prime Minister's meeting with President Nixon and also whether the government has had any official information about this decision by the President of the United States and the President of France?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this subject was discussed, but this particular announcement, which is not a decision, was not discussed by us.



LEVEL OF CANADIAN DOLLAR-ALLEGED SUGGESTION BY UNITED STATES TO REVALUE UPWARDS-CANADIAN REACTION

David Lewis: A further supplementary question. May I ask the Prime Minister whether in the discussions, or in the information that he has from the Minister of Finance, there was a request by the United States that the Canadian dollar be revalued upwards as

well as other currencies relative to the United States dollar? If so, is the government prepared to accept this suggestion by the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this was put to all members of the Group of Ten, including Canada, by the United States representatives. Our position has always been that we would have a free float.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it the view of the Prime Minister and his government that if all currencies other than that of the United States are revalued upwards relative to the U.S. dollar, Canada's currency will not be revalued upwards?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is the position of Canada and we have explained it many times. A year and a half ago or more, in June 1970, we did have this upward movement of the Canadian dollar when we unpegged the dollar. The hon. member might remember that.


George Harris Hees: A further supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair will allow one last supplementary on this subject and then recognize the hon. member for Regina East. We must try to make progress.


George Harris Hees: I was not referring to what has gone on so far, Mr. Speaker. I am asking the Prime Minister as of today, following this announcement, whether if all other currencies are revalued upwards the Prime Minister believes that Canada's currency would not be revalued upward but would remain stationary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest that in those terms the hon. member's supplementary question is hypothetical. I will recognize the hon. member for Edmonton West in a moment. I think we should try to complete the first round of questioning, and I will return to him immediately thereafter.



U.S. DISC LEGISLATION-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON IMPACT ON CANADIAN ECONOMY-DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF CANADIAN POLICY

John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Could the minister inform the House and the Canadian public of any estimate he has of the probable impact of the DISC act on the Canadian economy and, specifically, could he give information as to what sectors of our economy and what products will be most affected. Also, if necessary, would he be prepared to make a statement on motions on this subject at the earliest possible time?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that this is such a general question requiring a wide-ranging reply that normally it should be replied to by way of a statement on motions. If the minister wants to indicate whether such a statement will be made, that
December 14, 1971

would be in order. He should not make that statement now.


John Stratford Burton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister if the government has completed its studies of the DISC act, as approved by the President of the United States. Has the government assessed what the impact will be for Canada and can the minister say what action the Canadian government is to take to deal with the problems arising from that act?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and I have said on a number of occasions how difficult it will be to assess the effect of the DISC program on the Canadian economy, because it is impossible to isolate the DISC plan from all other factors such as currency valuation, the surcharge, cost of production, etc. We are monitoring the situation. We suspect that in certain industries DISC will not be used and we know that there is a possibility that it will be used in others. It is impossible to give the sort of black and white answer for which the hon. member is looking.


John Stratford Burton: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister inform the House when the government will be in a position to announce policies to deal with this situation and, particularly, when it will be in a position to announce contingency action for dealing with the immediate impact that may result from this act?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, that is a better question, if I may say so. Then I may say that the government, looking at the totality of the economic situation between Canada and the United States will announce its contingency action in the course.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour I shall put my question to his parliamentary secretary.
Is he in a position to tell us whether or not the Quebec government has taken a decision about the contributions of certain categories of employees of that province to the unemployment insurance fund?


Mr. Ray Perrault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour is not in the House today. I will advise him of the question and make sure that an appropriate reply is prepared for tomorrow afternoon.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Sainte-Marie wish to ask a supplementary?


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
In the absence of the Minister of Labour, I would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister if, following the decision
Inquiries of the Ministry
taken by the government of the province of Quebec to exclude from the Unemployment Insurance Act CEGEP and hospital employees which the Quebec government considers to be provincial civil servants, it is his intention to nullify that decision by enacting special regulations. In other words, what are the intentions of the federal government in this regard?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, there will be no special regulations. 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.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister and relates to the subject of international finance. Would the Prime Minister tell the House, if the United States were to indicate to Canada that the United States dollar is to go back to a revised base, whether Canada's currency is to be pegged. How does the Prime Minister envisage the continued floating of our dollar, which is outside the terms of the International Monetary Fund?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we have had a floating dollar and this has not detracted from our membership in the International Monetary Fund. It has been our position-and it will be even more important to adopt it if the Americans devalue their dollar-that it is impossible for anyone to state with precision where the Canadian dollar ought to be fixed. That is why we have relied on market forces to set the level of this floating dollar at whatever rate is judged to be the right one by the international money markets.



MINI-TYPE SUBMARINE-CANCELLATION OF EXPORT PERMIT ISSUED TO INTERNATIONAL HYDRODYNAMICS-DISCUSSIONS WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and arises from a press release issued this morning which indicated that, for security reasons, the export permit of a B.C. firm has been lifted. Can the minister tell the House, first of all, what security risks exist now that were not present at the time of the issuing of the permit?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, new information was gathered. The decision was made to cancel the permit in question.

December 14, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


J. Michael Forrestall: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell the House if any discussions have taken place between the officials of his department or officials of the Department of National Defence and corresponding United States government officials respecting the sale of this mini-sub? If so, what was the nature of these talks? Also, was the decision to lift the export permit based on these discussions?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, indeed, such conversations do take place between the Canadian government and the American government on occasions of this kind, as is normal between two allies. However, the decision was made strictly for Canadian security reasons.


Gerald William Baldwin: No doubt that is what the Prime Minister told the President in Washington.



NATURAL GAS-REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF BOARD DECISION IN VIEW OF DISCOVERIES BY PANARCTIC

Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of announced discoveries by Panarctic oil of natural gas in the Ellef-Ringnes Islands of the Northwest Territories, is the Prime Minister willing to intercede on behalf of Alberta producers and ask the National Energy Board to review applications which were recently turned down?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is suggesting that the government should intervene with the National Energy Board, I have suggested previously that the law does not permit us to do so in such circumstances.


Mr. Horner:: I think the law certainly does.



GAS AND OIL-ALLEGED INTENTION OF ALBERTA TO FORCE PRICE INCREASES-POSITION OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

William Skoreyko: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the government intend to resist the upward forcing of the price of gas and oil, to prevent Canadian domestic prices from reaching the level of prices in the United States market. Does this accord with the objectives of the Alberta government and producers in Alberta?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is not so much a question of the government resisting as determining what is in the interests of the Canadian public. If such a measure were contemplated by the Alberta government, it, must realize, of course, that it would be the consumer in Quebec and Ontario who would pay for additional subsidies to the Alberta people. I am not sure those consumers would be happy to do so.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What about Saskatchewan potash? You let them get away with it.



POST OFFICE


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Postmaster General. In view of the reported statement by the Assistant Deputy Postmaster General to the effect that the department is contemplating legal action against Professor Vanderberg for making false accusations against the management of the Post Office, could the Postmaster General inform the House whether he, himself, intends to take such action?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Barriere did not give any press conference or make any public statement in this connection.
As for taking legal action against Mr. Vanderberg I can see no reason for doing so.



SUGGESTED MEETING BETWEEN PROFESSOR


David Orlikow: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Postmaster General consider meeting with Professor Vanderberg and representatives of the postal unions to discuss the alleged charges, so that there might be an amicable understanding on the matter instead of the possible legal action.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, if they want to meet with me, I would have no objection at all.



PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister advised the Prime Minister to request the Governor General to have the Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland summon the House of Assembly of that province into session?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that this question cannot be asked in those terms of the minister. Perhaps the hon. member might like to rephrase the question or ask another question of the minister. The hon. member, I am sure, knows that in those terms the question cannot be answered.


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, I will then direct my question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received advice from the Minister of Transport or from his own advisers or federal law officers to have the Lieutenant-Governor of Newfoundland, who was appointed by the Governor in Council, call the House of Assembly into
D ecember 14, 1971

session so that the parliamentary situation in Newfoundland can be properly resolved.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Prince Edward Hastings. Perhaps the Chair might recognize the hon. member for St. John's East and then the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister. As His Excellency's principal adviser, has the Prime Minister been called upon to give advice regarding the constitutional situation in Newfoundland?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have not been called upon to do that, Mr. Speaker, neither by the Minister of Transport nor by His Excellency or by the Queen. But if the opposition is advancing the interesting constitutional theory that I should be telling the Lieutenant-Governor of a province what he should be doing, I will apply this to Newfoundland in the coming months.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Could the right hon. gentleman identify to the House the gentleman to whom he referred on several occasions merely as "Buster" in his impassioned plea for funds delivered to the faithful in Montreal on Sunday night.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that this question cannot be asked.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, May I ask a supplementary. I will rephrase my question. Is the purpose of this whole exercise to make the Prime Minister out as a tough guy instead of the dilettante dabbler in social issues the country has known him as. Answer that one.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.



U.S. DISC LEGISLATION-CRITERIA FOR APPLICATION TO COUNTRIES

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In the discussions he and his officials have had with their counterparts in the United States, has the United States government indicated to him or to his departmental officials whether the DISC program will be of general application to all countries or whether it will be applicable only to those countries which in the opinion of the United States government are subsidizing their exports through tax concessions or other means.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I am not absolutely sure. My impression was that it was general.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I assume the minister has discussed this very important matter with the United States authorities and surely he can give us something more definitive.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member was recognized for the purpose of asking a question.



U.S. DISC LEGISLATION-POSSIBLE USE OF COUNTERVAILING DUTIES UNDER GATT

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask first of all whether the minister can give us something more definite and, secondly, whether the minister or his department are studying whether or not under GATT we would be entitled in Canada to use countervailing duties in order to cope with the DISC program, if it is of general application.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first part I said I had assumed it was general. The thought expressed by my hon. friend just now is one which caught me by suprise. Let me repeat, I assumed, and still do, that DISC is universal in application. With regard to our opinion on the DISC program with reference to the GATT philosophy and regulations, we have said from the beginning that the DISC program was not according to GATT.



MANPOWER


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration but, in his absence, I will direct it to the Prime Minister.
Is he prepared to tell the House whether the government intends to modify again its local initiatives program so that people would earn more money by working than by remaining idle and drawing unemployment insurance?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Unemployment Insurance Act was passed during this session. I do not know whether the member voted against it but we do not intend to modify it.



U.S. DISC LEGISLATION-POSSIBLE USE OF COMPARABLE PROGRAM BY CANADA

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce whether in the course of discussion of his package of irritants he has determined the attitude of the United States toward Canada adopting a policy comparable to their DISC program. Has the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce asked how the United States administration would regard the adoption by

December 14, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
Canada of a program comparable to the DISC program applying to companies exporting from Canada to all other countries? Has the minister sought to ascertain whether this would be regarded as a matter to which the United States would raise objection.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, my philosophy on that is very simple. We consider the DISC legislation to be against the principles and regulations of the GATT arrangements. The Minister of Finance on a number of occasions has said that Canada would have to take counter measures. What exactly these counter measures would be will be made known in due course. Whether it would be aiming at DISC specifically or whether we would react to the totality of the economic situation between Canada and the United States caused by President Nixon's measures is something which will be made known in due course.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Kent-Essex.



INDUSTRY


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Because of the impact on the employment situation which the development and production of the STOL aircraft may have, has the government made its intention known to the DeHavilland Company concerning whether or not it will extend its support beyond the spring cut-off point.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Support to STOL has been extended. Everybody interested in the Affairs of this Company is well aware the government has in the past, is now, and intends to continue to support the STOL program. It is then a matter of degree.



AGRICULTURE


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture of which I have given him notice. With regard to the plan the minister announced some days ago concerning assistance to small farms, could the minister say how the amount of money available from the federal treasury will be divided between the provinces or apportioned to provinces and specifically whether the funds available will be enough to replace entirely a related program which is now being carried on under the auspices of the government of Prince Edward Island.


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker,
I do not believe any attempt will be made to allocate
(Mr. Stanfield.]
money by provinces or by any other geographical areas, because we want the benefits of this program to be essentially applicable on a uniform basis to all people in the same economic position in all parts of Canada. Specifically, with regard to the FRED program in Prince Edward Island, I do not believe we intend to withdraw that program or the facilities that are available there. So, the question of replacing the money does not arise.



MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-INQUIRY AS TO AVAILABILITY OF FEASIBILITY REPORT

Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Could the minister tell us when he expects to have the final report on the feasibility of a pipeline down the Mackenzie Valley available to the public particularly since the United States Congress is receiving a similar report on the TAPS pipeline.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, no definite report is to be prepared. We have made some studies in several fields. We are willing to receive the applications from any group interested in the construction of a pipeline and we shall make a decision according to their proposals.


Robert Norman Thompson: Are we to take from the minister's answer that there will be no formal report or public statement on the feasibility of that pipeline?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: There is no report and no study. [Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, no doubt the government will make some statements when it has reached a decision.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: My question is for the
Minister of Agriculture. I should like to ask him, with regard to the statement he made yesterday concerning the subsidy which will be available to small producers of butterfat, whether payments will be made automatically to those producers or will an application have to be made by them?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I cannot answer that question precisely because, of course, we do have the records of those small producers who have continued to ship, and the processors or the dairies have continued to send the records of their deliveries. However,
December 14, 1971

it may be that it will be necessary for applications to be made, but I would like to reply in more detail to the hon. member in a day or two.


Stanley James Korchinski: May I ask the minister how soon he anticipates a decision will be made, and whether he has made an estimate of the amount of money involved.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The payments for this year to any small cream shipper reinstated during this dairy year will be made at the end of the dairy year, but they will be made for the whole of the shipments that were delivered since April 1, 1971. I do not have the exact figure of the estimated cost.



FISHERIES


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: My question is for the
Minister of Fisheries. I should like to ask him whether or not he is prepared to confirm the announcement made by Mr. Patrick Bertram, manager of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation in Winnipeg, that, contrary to the commitment the minister made in the House a year ago, the Selkirk freshwater fish plant will be closed?


Hon. lack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: I should like to take the question as notice.



POSSIBLE ASSISTANCE TO MANITOBA FISHERMEN


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment and Fisheries. Is the minister in a position to say whether any agreement has been finalized between the federal government and the province of Manitoba in relation to assistance for fishermen whose business has been sadly threatened as a result of pollution?


John (Jack) Davis: No, but substantial funds have been invested in the development of new fisheries to which these fishermen could direct their efforts in the future.


Robert Simpson: Can the minister say whether the federal government is still negotiating with the province of Manitoba to come up with a program which will assist the fishermen?


John (Jack) Davis: My department is not. However, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been assisting, as has the Department of Regional Economic Development and the Department of Manpower and Immigration.
Inquiries of the Ministry



NATIONAL PARKS


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Is it true that he is now negotiating with the Quebec government for the development of new national parks and the creation of jobs in Quebec-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot ask a minister to confirm or deny a news. He should ask a direct question. Being granted that the question was so asked, the minister might reply.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we are continuously negotiating with the provinces and I am happy to see that the province of Quebec is interested in the development of federal parks inside its territory.


Martial Asselin: I should like to direct a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Is it true that the hon. minister is considering the establishment of a national park-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that notwithstanding the procedure, it is not in order to ask the minister whether a national park will be established in one area rather than another. I believe that kind of question should be placed on the order paper or debated on the ajournment motion-
One hon. Member: I should like to direct a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: That applies to supplementary questions also.


Martial Asselin: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


David Lewis: I want to address a question to the Prime Minister. I should like to ask him whether the government has reached a final decision and has reached an agreement on a statement with regard to Canada's policy on foreign investment and foreign ownership in this country.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would say that this was done many weeks ago. I had indicated to the Conservative party that if their convention had come up with any bright resolutions we might have reconsidered our policy, but we find there is no need to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

December 14, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


David Lewis: In view of the fact that the government has definitely reached a decision on this subject, will the Prime Minister stop hiding behind the suggestion that-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: That is not a question, that is a suggestion.


David Lewis: May I rephrase my question, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that very soon we will be running short of time. If the hon. member has a supplementary question, it should be asked in proper form and as quickly as possible.


David Lewis: I will be glad to ask it in proper form if the Prime Minister will answer in proper form. In view of the fact that months ago the Prime Minister undertook to make an announcement of policy on this issue as soon as the government had made a decision on it, will he now make that announcement in view of the fact that the decision has been reached and not wait for publication of studies which can come after the policy has been announced?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that we will be running out of time in a few moments. The Prime Minister might answer the question, but we will have to reduce the number of supplementary questions.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the NDP has made a suggestion. It is one way of proceeding. This government believes that it is important to state the government's policy and at the same time to have available the background documents on which this policy was based, in order that there may be an informed public discussion of it. This is a subject which has provoked a great deal of emotional debate in all parties, and we think that it would be right for the Canadian public to have the facts at the same time as they have the government's policy decision. The hon. member may not agree with that, but that is the government's position.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the fact that the Atlantic salmon is threatened with extinction due to excessive deep sea fishing by foreign nationals, especially the Danes, in Davis Strait, could the minister indicate whether any progress has been made to end this tragic situation through further discussions or agreement among the countries who are signatories to the International Convention for the North Atlantic Fishery and who belong to the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Commission, to cease deep sea salmon fishing?


John (Jack) Davis: Some progress has been made, but certainly not enough and we must

continue to press for the complete cessation of high sea fishing for salmon.



STATUS OF AGREEMENT WITH DENMARK-REQUEST FOR TABLING

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Has the Minister of Fisheries or the Department of External Affairs concluded an agreement with Denmark, and would he be prepared to table the results of that agreement in the House?


John (Jack) Davis: An agreement for the phasing out of Danish fishermen from the Gulf of St. Lawrence and other Canadian waters and the tagging of our fisheries lines has been under discussion during the past summer. I am not quite sure of the precise status of that agreement. I do not think it has been ratified by Denmark as yet, but it will be tabled very shortly.


Mr. Speaker:: Again I have to bring to the attention of hon. members that we will be running short of time. The original question was asked by the hon. member for South Shore. One supplementary question was asked by another hon. member and another hon. member wishes to ask a further supplementary question. Obviously, a number of hon. members will not have the opportunity to ask their questions if we have too many supplementary questions. However, I will recognize the hon. member for St. John's East.



REPORTING OF FISH TAGGED BY CANADA- CO-OPERATION OF DENMARK

James Aloysius McGrath: I wish to ask my supplementary question because this is a serious matter. I should like to ask the minister whether the Danes are co-operating with Canada in reporting any fish that were tagged in Canadian waters which were caught pff Greenland by the Danes?


John (Jack) Davis: There is some co-operation.



POST OFFICE


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General.
I should like to ask him whether he could inform the House of the contents of the letter he sent to several private trucking companies, engaged in mail delivery under contracts with the federal government, and what was the purpose of such a letter? Could he tell us whether he is trying to acquire those private companies so as to make a Crown corporation out of the Post Office Department?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, I did not send any letter to any contractor.



PENITENTIARIES


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Solicitor General of which I have given him notice. Will he please expedite the settlement of the contract between the village of Bath and his department, for supplying water service to Millhaven prison?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that this is a representation rather than a question, and he can assume that the minister has received the representation. The hon. member for Fundy-Royal.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, could I not get a yes or no answer from the minister as this is very important to the municipality?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, a firm offer is being completed and will be made to the authorities of Bath in a few days.
Inquiries of the Ministry
United States to shift production to the United States, has the minister met with any officers of the branch plants of American corporations in Canada to see whether they intend to respond to the directives under the DISC program?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I have met with some Canadian presidents and directors of international companies. I do not think I am in a position this afternoon to report on what they told me.


Mr. Saltsman:: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, in view of the seriousness of the situation and the great interest in the question, can the minister indicate when he will be in a position to report to the House?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I really do not know if I can contact every president of an international company in Canada and ask him to swear on a stack of Bibles that his parent company will not use the DISC program-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In light of the statement made by the newly created Canada-U.S. Trade Statistics Committee that they are still trying to resolve a $1 billion Canada-U.S. trade statistics discrepancy for 1970, can the minister inform the House whether talks on the auto pact have been proceeding on an agreement of the trade figures involved?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, it is known that there is an important discrepancy between Canadian statistics on trade and American statistics and, as is also known, an effort is being made to reconcile these views. I understand some kind of understanding has been reached on general philosophy and objectives which gives me hope that some degree of reconciliation will take place in the coming months. The present discussions on the automobile pact are taking place on the basis of available statistics. They have their's; we have our's, and this is one reason we do not agree entirely.



U.S. DISC LEGISLATION-POSSIBLE RESPONSE BY BRANCH PLANTS IN CANADA-REQUEST FOR REPORT

Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce with reference to the DISC program. Since the chief purpose of that program would seem to be the encouragement of corporations operating outside the 24725-33S



CUSTOMS CLEARANCE OF AIRCRAFT LEAVING


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Would the minister advise the House whether he intends to review the policy of his department under which aircraft are allowed to leave Canadian air fields which are not served by customs officials when the aircraft are destined to fly to some field inside the United States without some check as to their contents, or would he explain just how these aircraft get customs clearance before they leave?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the complexity of that question I am not exactly sure of what specific example the hon. member has in mind. Perhaps I can consult him later.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport whether, in fact the government has abandoned its plans for a second international airport at Toronto and has reverted to its original intention to extend the Toronto International Airport? If not, when can we expect any decision with respect to the second international airport?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, we certainly have not abandoned any plans for a so-called second international airport in Toronto. As to the date upon which we might be able to say something

December 14. 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
further, I think the hon. gentleman knows from previous answers I have given that this is a complex matter on which we are progressing in consultation with the government of Ontario, but neither side is ready to make a statement.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: One short supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have to bring to the attention of hon. members that we have just about reached the end of the question period. I will try to recognize two or three other members before calling Orders of the Day.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General but since he has just left the chamber I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary. Has the minister or his department investigated allegations that visiting rights were denied to members of the Black United Front but were permitted to white friends of the Black Front who wished to visit inmates of the federal penitentiary at Dorchester last weekend and, if so, with what result?


Mr. Douglas A. Hogarth (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I shall take that question as notice.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. It arises out of the relatively large number of foreclosures being undertaken by the Farm Credit Corporation in the province of Alberta. Could he advise the House if any assistance will be provided to those individuals who are affected, and face the prospect of being forced off their land, under the provisions of the new development program being undertaken by the Department of Agriculture in co-operation with the provincial departments of agriculture?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we do not envisage any assistance of that nature under the Small Farms Development Program, but I can advise you that there are no foreclosures being proceeded with unless the arrears were outstanding for at least four years, and in many cases these accounts have been in arrears for many more years than that.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in order that the minister may not mislead the House I would like to advise that in answers to questions on the order paper the minister has indicated to the House that
(Mr. Jamieson.]
there are indeed some 85 foreclosures being commenced in the province of Alberta. I would like that to be clearly placed on the record.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, that does not change the validity of my reply.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


John Howard Lundrigan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in view of the announcement by the Minister of Fisheries today that an agreement is to be consummated between Denmark and Canada, and in view of the fact that it has not been brought before the Canadian Parliament, I would like you to ask for unanimous consent to return to motions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that that might be done tomorrow.


John Howard Lundrigan: But, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I will inquire if there is unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that that was not a point of order at all. I wish to point out to hon. members that we are getting into a position where, every day when we reach the end of the question period, many members still rise to ask questions. The rules are clear. When the time has expired the Chair has to call orders of the day.


John Howard Lundrigan: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, a few days ago there was an agreement consummated between Norway and Canada which has caused a lot of concern in the Atlantic provinces. At the present time there are negotiations going on between Denmark and Canada, between Spain and Canada, between Portugal and Canada, between France and Canada, and between the United Kingdom and Canada, and all these agreements are being made without any reference to the Parliament of Canada. I feel, and I think many hon. members feel that this is by-passing Parliament and is not giving an opportunity to Canadian parliamentarians to pass judgment. In Norway the agreement had to be ratified by the parliament of that country. I feel that if the Canadian government is going to continue in this way there will have to be a tremendous amount of opposition mounted from this side of the House.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: Just before calling orders of the day, perhaps I should bring to the attention of hon. members that the following matters will be discussed at the time of adjournment tonight: the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson)-Research-farm machinery;
December 14, 1971

the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz)-Airports; the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett)-Shipping-maintenance of service on west coast of Vancouver Island.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, December 13, 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.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes that I had last evening just before ten o'clock, I pointed out that in my contribution to the third reading of Bill C-259 I wanted to concentrate on what I regard as the biggest disappointment in this massive piece of legislation. I refer to the fact that the exemption levels have been raised only to $1,500 a year for a single taxpayer and only to $2,850 a year for a married taxpayer. I also indicated last evening that at the end of my remarks this afternoon I would move an amendment asking the House to vote for the reference back to the Committee of the Whole House of this bill so that consideration might be given to correcting this major disappointment.
I confess, Mr. Speaker, that there are a number of other things about the bill which in my view are wrong and disappointing and I should like to talk about them. I am not yielding to that temptation, however, other than to mention them. I would have liked to talk about the inadequacy of the $150 employment expense deduction made available to workers, and likewise about the inadequacy of the child care cost deduction. I would have liked to make reference to the failure of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) to make effective for the year 1971 all of the improvements that he has made respecting senior citizens. I would have liked to talk of the action being taken with respect to capital gains, particularly the discrimination that exists in this bill between those who earn their income by hard work, whether manual, mental or otherwise and those whose income derives from capital gains. On the one hand, the income is fully taxable but if it is a capital gain it is taxable only to the extent of 50 per cent. I would have liked also to talk about the increase in the dividend tax credit from 20 per cent to 33-1/3 per cent which is another case of discrimination in favour of the "haves" and against the "have nots". I would also have liked to mention our objection to the disappearance of the federal government from the estate tax field. If that were not enough to show why we have to vote against this bill we could have called the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans) as a witness and pointed out that this bill completely fails to deal with the basic problem we face in this country, namely that of developing labour intensive
Income Tax Act
industry so that our nation will not be just a hewer of wood and drawer of water.
In other words, there is so much that is wrong with this bill, apart from its complexities and the monstrous size of it, and the way the government is putting it through Parliament, that any of us who believe in tax reform and in a rational and progressive approach to taxation have no option but to vote against it. I have already indicated that I am turning aside the temptation to talk about that list of subjects because I think the biggest disappointment of all is the way in which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has dealt with the question of exemption levels. I submit that this is of concern to more Canadians than any other phase of the bill. I submit that all the talk about what the government has done for low income people fades into nothing when one realizes that the government is still going to impose taxation on incomes at the low levels prescribed in this bill.
When I was speaking for the four or five minutes I had last evening, I repeated a statement I have made before, a statement that has been made in the course of this debate perhaps dozens of times but which I think has to be modified. Last night I said that the present exemption levels of $1,000 single and $2,000 married were set in 1949, 22 years ago. For the government, after a lapse of 22 years, to raise those exemption levels only to $1,500 single and $2,850 married was both inadequate and an insult to the Canadian people. It is correct that in 1949, 22 years ago, the levels were set at the present figures of $1,000 single and $2,000 married, but I realized after I said that last night that there is a history behind 1949 which one should review and I have done that today. In other words, I have checked my memory by going to the history books, including Hansard and the Journals and so on. I should like to remind the House that when the exemption levels were set at $1,000 single and $2,000 married in 1949 it was only a case of restoring the levels to those figures from the lower figures that had been put into effect mainly during the years of World War II.
The figures of $1,000 single and $2,000 married were first introduced in the year 1933, 38 years ago. Between 1933 and 1949 those levels were lowered; in fact, they got down as low as $660 single and $1,200 married during the Ilsley days. All that happened in 1949 was that the figures set in 1933 were again put into the act. When we compare the proposed levels of $1,500 and $2,850 with the present levels of $1,000 and $1,500 we make a mistake if all we say is that it has taken 22 years to make this change-it is actually 38 years since the Income Tax Act had exemption levels of $1,000 single and $2,000 married written into it.
I invite hon. members to go back even a little further in history. They will discover that in the late 1920's when the Liberals were in power the rates they set were even higher. In the late 1920s the rates were $1,200 single and $2,400 married. It was in 1933 that Mr. Rhodes, who was the Minister of Finance in the Bennett government, because of the difficulties of the depression, lowered them to $1,000 and $2,000. Take either of these benchmarks that you want, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative $1,000 and $2,000 of 1933 or the Liberal $1,200 and $2,400 of the late 1920s, and I submit that the present Minister of Finance is literally doing nothing-

December 14, 1971
Income Tax Act


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: -when he proposes to this House today exemptions of $1,500 single and $2,850 married. The $1,500 exemption is $300 more than the $1,200 in the late 1920s; the $2,850 exemption is $450 more than the $2,400 of the late 1920s. But in that period of time the cost of living has risen between two and three times. The value of the dollar, in terms of purchasing power, is less than half what it was. As for government budgets and the gross national product, we have gone to the moon compared with the situation in those days. I say to the Minister of Finance-


An hon. Member:: $5 billion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon.
member says "$5 billion." I believe the gross national product in 1933 was $3 billion. Today it is more than $90 billion. In the face of that, the genial Minister of Finance, whom one of his colleagues described as having an impish smile, has asked us to think that he is doing something for the low income people, the ordinary working people of Canada, because he now so magnanimously and generously is raising the exemption levels to $1,500 single and $2,850 married. I submit that compared with the increases in the cost of living-


Edgar John Benson: How about comparing it with any other country in the world?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am not a
member of the Parliament of any other country. I am a member of the Parliament of Canada. I represent Canadian people. I want justice for the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am glad to see the Minister of Finance applauding that statement. Instead of patting his desk, I wish he would pat the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) where it would encourage him to do something in terms of justice.
We have had to point out that some of the increases given to old age pensioners are really decreases because of the rise in the cost of living. In light of the increase in the cost of living, the increased affluence in the country, the gross national product and the budgets of all our governments, these figures of $1,500 single and $2,850 married are a reduction. It puts the taxpayers of today in a relatively worse position than the taxpayers in the Bennett days of 1933 when $1,000 and $2,000 were applicable, or in the Liberal days of the 1920s when the deductions were $1,200 and $2,400.


Mr. Mahoney:: What about the old age pensions of the 1920s?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, yes. My friend is indulging in a recital of the things we fought for in the past 40 or 50 years. He knows that in light of today's gross national product and our affluence we have not begun to give our senior people their rightful share of what is being produced today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
(Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).]


Stanley Howard Knowles: I welcome the fact that during the course of this debate many members have referred to the 1949 date, 22 years ago, when the last change was made in the exemption levels. However, I invite members on this side and members opposite to consider the bit of history I have given this afternoon, for in fact the comparison that should be made is not with 1949 but with 1933 or, better still, with the late 1920s. It was then that the Liberals were in power. In terms of what was the case then, literally nothing has been done. I will correct that: something has been done-the position of the low paid workers has been made relatively worse.
Don't tell me that other things have improved such as pensions, allowances, and so on. Of course there are things for people who retire today that were not available in the time of my father and my grandfather. Society has moved on. Progress has been made. The whole purpose and aim of a movement such as ours is to see to it that the improvements society makes are shared by the people. We want to ensure that those improvements get back to the people who helped make them possible. This tax bill does not do that.
Hon. members on the Liberal side like to speak about the number of people, taken off the tax rolls and the number of people being granted reductions in the taxes they pay. This all sounds good until you look at it in comparative terms. In comparative terms, this government and the genial minister with his impish smile are doing harm to the Canadian people. They are failing to give them what is their right. There is no place in this massive 739-page tax bill-now larger than when it was before the committee of the whole-where this betrayal of the rights of the ordinary people of this country is better demonstrated than in what it has done with regard to the income tax exemption levels. It would have been more honest if the minister had left them where they were.
The exemptions have been raised by a few paltry hundred dollars. The minister is saying to the people of Canada, "look what we have done for you." That is a form of political dishonesty. That is why we are voting against this bill. As a package, it is not good enough. This particular area demonstrates its shortcomings and inadequacies. It is because of our primary concern about the position of the lower income people, as reflected in this talk about the exemption levels, that I am concentrating on this issue this afternoon. It is for that reason I am moving an amendment of which I gave notice last night.
As hon. members are aware, it has been made clear to us that we cannot move an amendment to raise the exemption levels. We have been told that this is a matter of government policy. It has the effect of altering the tax structure and putting the incidence, somewhere else than the government chose to put it. Several times in committee of the whole it was made clear that we cannot do that, but that it is in order for a private member to move for certain rates of taxation to be reduced, provided one makes that reduction general and right across the board. Far from the restriction being a difficult one for us, we welcome it. Rather than raising the exemption levels, which always has the effect of giving a bonanza to those at the top in return for not much more than a banana peel to those at the bottom-
December 14, 1971


George Harris Hees: That's not bad, Stan.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -we prefer the system of tax credits. I may in passing allude to some of the other matters I referred to earlier. I mentioned the matter of giving something to workers for their employment expenses. This would be better covered by a tax credit than a $150 exemption. The same applies to child care expenses, and so on. In the case of income tax, rather than a higher exemption level, which would give a bonanza to those at the top, we would like to see-I hope I am not talking so loudly Your Honour cannot hear what other hon. members are saying. We feel that instead of raising exemption levels it would be better to provide as much as possible by way of tax credits to those in the lower brackets.
As Your Honour is aware, when we were in committee of the whole on clause 1, I moved that certain changes be made in section 117(1). The amendment I moved on November 1 was accepted by the Chair as procedurally in order and it was put to a vote on November 2. Quite a few members were present. The vote was 64 to 42 against my amendment. But one would hope that with the ringing of the bells there would be a larger attendance than that, and since this is such an important issue we are sure that members would like to have their names on record in Hansard. That is one reason for my making my motion again at third reading. Do they stand for doing nothing better than in 1933, or in the late twenties, or do they want to take some action which really begins to improve the position of the low income people of this country?
The amendment I propose to move in a moment or two would affect the rate of taxation which applies to the first $500 of taxable income. The tax would be reduced from 17 per cent to 2 per cent. Then something else would be done which is consequential in nature. The result would be that on the first $500 of taxable income the taxpayer would pay only 2 per cent, which is $10, instead of the present $85. This would mean that a single person whose income is $2,000 would pay only $10.


Mr. Langlois:: That is terrible. A whole $10! Why not nothing?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is typical of the Liberals. They are charging these people $85. They know that under the rules we cannot move to wipe the charge out altogether. We can only reduce it so they think it is a big joke when we suggest that these people pay only $10. I say that is typical of their attitude toward low income people. They have no sympathies, no heart.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: At the same time, my amendment would reduce the tax paid by those in each of the other brackets, all the way up to the top, by the same amount, that is, by $75. In other words, the saving through my amendment to the millionaire would be precisely the same, $75, as it would be to the person in the first income bracket. That is the way a tax credit works as opposed to the exemption level system. The exemption level system gives more to those at the top and
Income Tax Act
little or nothing to those at the bottom. The same would happen if we used the tax credit system for child care costs, and so on.
My amendment, Mr. Speaker, would thus do two things. On the one hand it would improve the situation of the low income people. It would for all practical purposes put the exemption level at $2,000 for a single person which is the least it ought to be today. The other thing would be to introduce the tax credit system as a means of improving our tax law. The government knows the tax credit system is workable. It does it for those who receive dividends from Canadian corporations. There is no problem there.
I say to the credit of the Minister of Finance-and I have to give him credit once in a while-that in one of the clauses of the bill which is so close to the back that we never got anywhere near it there is a provision saying that in this year, 1971, people whose taxable income is $500 or less will pay no income tax. So he has provided what in effect is a tax credit. If a single person had an income above $1,000 in the year 1971, then by the rules in the book he would be called upon to pay a tax on the first $500 above that level. But the provision in this particular case would wipe out that obligation altogether. So the minister knows it can be done; he knows the technique. In this case he is doing it because it is the only way to solve a problem, and it applies only once, to the year 1971. But the principle is so good, so fair, that it ought to be started on a permanent basis in our income tax law.
This is why I am happy to move my amendment this afternoon. It provides relief to those who need it, to those whose income is slightly over the level the minister has set, and it establishes the principle of dealing with this problem by way of the tax credit system. I hope hon. members will think seriously about it. There was good support for this amendment in committee of the whole on this side of the House on November 2. Surely some Liberals have done a little thinking about this legislation in the weeks that have gone by since November 2. Surely they have read the newspapers, received some mail, chatted among themselves about a just society and that kind of thing. May one hope that as a result of this they can take a different view when a recorded vote is called on the amendment I shall shortly be moving?
I have tried to show that there are many shortcomings in this bill. The total package is extremely disappointing to those of us who believe in tax reform and a progressive system of taxation, leaving us with no choice but to vote against the bill as a whole. This we shall do at 3.45 p.m. this coming Friday under the rule which has been imposed on us today. But if we cannot get all the other changes made, if we cannot secure the massive improvement we would like, I hope the House will seriously consider this one crucial matter.
It is not good enough in 1971 for Liberals to be talking magnanimously about exemption levels of $1,500 and $2,850 when in the late twenties the exemption levels were $1,200 and $2,400. The Minister of Finance had better quit making that speech if he has any capacity for being embarrassed at all. In comparative terms, he has not done anything. I am sorry; I have to correct that statement again. He has done something; he has made things relatively worse for the low income people of this country.

December 14, 1971
Income Tax Act


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hon. members over there moan and say "Oh!" If they do not want to pay attention to what I have said, they can go and read history for themselves. The facts I have given this afternoon can be ascertained by anyone who goes to the library and searches through the records. The hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen) is making an interjection of some kind. I do not get what he is saying but I recognize the timber of his voice.


An hon. Member:: And the timber in his head.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, I would not say that. One of the most disappointing things is to hear the minister go around boasting about these changes in exemption levels when in comparative terms he has done nothing.


Mr. Sulatycky:: Play the record over again.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member across the way, one of the parliamentary secretaries, wants me to play the record over again. When one scores at all, the true nature of what it is to be a Liberal comes out. He just likes controlling the levers of power. He likes running the show. But as for concern about the ordinary people of this country, he just isn't interested at all.
To give this House the opportunity to vote for a reconsideration of this whole question of taxing incomes in the range of just $500 above $1,500 and just $500 above $2,850, I present the amendment that I read to the House last night. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands:
That Bill C-259 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole House for the purpose of reconsidering the proposed new section 117(1) as set out in clause 1 on pages 313 and 314, and in particular for the purpose of reconsidering the changing of the figure "17%" in line 33 on page 313 to "2%" and consequentially reducing the amount at the beginning of each of the paragraphs (b) to (m), both inclusive, on page 314, by $75.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The advance notice given by the hon. member has given the Chair ample time to examine his motion as to its procedural acceptability. I will put the motion at this time as accepted procedurally. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), moves:
That Bill C-259 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole House for the purpose of reconsidering the proposed new section 117(1) as set out in clause 1 on pages 313 and 314, and in particular for the purpose of reconsidering the changing of the figure "17%" in line 33 on page 313 to "2%" and consequentially reducing the amount at the beginning of each of the paragraphs (b) to (m), both inclusive, on page 314, by $75.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker-


William Arnold Peters: Tell us what you really said at Thunder Bay, John.


John (Moody) Roberts: -the pleasure I have in following the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is somewhat diminished by the recognition that he has once again returned to that pure claim for moral sanctity that so often decorates his addresses to this House. He leaves no stone unturned in his desire to assure us all that only he and his party really care for the poor and distressed of this country.


David Lewis: Now, cut that out.


John (Moody) Roberts: I wish to assure him that those on this side of the House do not in any way yield to him in our desire to improve conditions in this country.


David Lewis: Do something about it, then.


John (Moody) Roberts: I had not intended originally to take part in this debate. It had seemed to me that in terms of redundancy and repetition the debate had gone on long enough. If it were considered, as the official opposition contend, that there was not enough time to discuss many more things of importance, then it is surely remarkable that those hon. members have not taken the opportunity during the time they have spent debating the bill in this House to present their own ideas on the bill, rather than continuing with their indecision, their obstruction, their little games of parliamentary procedure, hiding behind the curtains and rushing in with great fanfare, threatening to shred the bill to pieces. These are the actions more of publicity hounds than of parliamentarians trying to present a considered view.
I had not considered it necessary to take part in this debate because, as a member of the committee on finance, I did spend two years considering tax reform. During those two years I had ample opportunity to present my own ideas on where we should go in terms of tax reform. I did so, and the final Commons committee report was very close to what I felt should be presented to this House.


George Harris Hees: You are a very modest fellow, John.


John (Moody) Roberts: At least I am slightly more modest than the hon. member, whose view is that last year he had one fault-he was modest. This year he is perfect. However, I have some difficulty in taking the hon. member seriously. I am always afraid that, like some aged Rudy Vallee, the hon. member is about to break into a buck and wing across the House.


George Harris Hees: That was a dandy one, John.


John (Moody) Roberts: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, I felt that I had had the opportunity of presenting my ideas about tax reform, and my support for the committee report was well known. However, yesterday in this House the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) challenged me, and members who think as I do, to rise and to place their views before the House. I welcome that challenge. The remarks of the Leader of the Opposition yesterday were based upon a report of a speech of mine which he had read in a newspaper, the Globe and Mail I believe. I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for his recognition during the course of his speech that it might very well be the case that the report on which he was basing his remarks was a distorted report. That is in fact the case.
December 14. 1971

I must say that when I read the newspaper report I too was concerned, for I feared that exactly the kind of misinterpretation that was placed upon my remarks in this House yesterday might be the one that would normally spring from such a report. I was particularly perturbed when I found the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather), a man for whom I have enormous respect, had misinterpreted the remarks I believe I made in Thunder Bay. Had I given cause, in what I had said, for these misconstructions of my thought? As a result of my concern I checked with the organizers of the conference, who assured me that there was indeed much distortion of what I actually said. I do not have a written text of my remarks, but there is a tape which the organizing committee has. I have been told that the remark on tax reform attributed to me was not made. If by some slip of the tongue I did make the remark quoted, then I will certainly correct it in the House.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned for the dinner recess I had been saying that to the best of my recollection the remark that had been attributed to me was not one that I had made. I made every effort to find out from the organizers of the conference whether I had made such a remark and they assured me that there was great distortion in the report. I regret that, because at the conference this past weekend I made a speech which I thought was extremely interesting.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Moody) Roberts: And I am dismayed to find that not one of the interesting things I said was reported in the press. I am reassured by knowing that if I had actually launched the vicious attack against the government, as alleged, no doubt other newspapers would have also reported my remarks.
I said this weekend that I thought it was important for us to develop instruments of government, precise instruments for planning, which would enable us to look at government legislation, proposals and programs in light of a coherent economic policy on the basis of how the Canadian economy should look at the end of this decade. I mentioned several areas where I thought this could be done and several elements that might be part of such a policy. I mentioned unemployment policy, productivity policy and resource policy. I mentioned social welfare and its cost. I wanted social costs to be considered and an assessment of them to be a factor in this decision-making process.
I referred hardly at all to tax reform, except to cite it as one example of an instrument which should be used or
Income Tax Act
which should be a means of reaching these objectives. I referred to the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman), my friend even though he belongs to another political party. I described the two years we had spent on the tax committee. I explained that in the deliberations of the committee it was difficult for us to move as effectively and fast as I would like to move without some overriding conception of what our industrial policy should be. I admitted that these were difficulties for the committee.
In my view, these difficulties were overcome. At the end of two years we arrived at a policy on tax reform which I wholly supported. That was in the Commons committee report. It is because the government's proposed tax reform measure embodies so much of the Commons committee report that I am happy to support the government's measure. I admit-as do, I think, all members on this side of the House-that the tax reform proposals are not absolutely, purely and truly perfect.


An hon. Member:: I do not think that.


John (Moody) Roberts: Most of us think that, with the exception of some of my colleagues on this side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Moody) Roberts: We have a varied group over here, Mr. Speaker, and we harbour a variety of views of all colours, like a bank of 1,000 flowers. Essentially, the important things which have been done in the government's tax proposals are these: first, there has been a shifting in the basic exemption levels, a raising of the exemptions which shifts the burden of taxation away from those with lower incomes. That I support. Half the capital gains are to be included in the tax base. This is a great improvement. There is also, to my mind, a more equitable treatment of resource industries. If hon. members of the House are interested in following in detail my views on these points, they will do well to refer to the deliberations of the committee.
I admit, Mr. Speaker, that the tax proposals of the government are not perfect. However, the Leader of the Opposition elaborated what seems to me to be an extraordinary doctrine, namely, that if legislation is not absolutely and purely perfect it should not be proceeded with. I think that is the sort of argument he tried to make in his speech yesterday. He suggested that after ten years of discussing tax reform, going back to the original Carter commission discussions, and ten years of opportunity to present views, we have not had enough time. This is a little like that famous historian, Lord Acton, who was so greatly concerned about researching his book that he compiled material which became so voluminous that he could not get around to writing the book.
The Leader of the Opposition seems to say that if we have not gone into everything in every way, if we do not know everything about everything, then we cannot legislate. He calls that research; it is, more properly, delay, hesitation and indecision. He suggested that legislation must be absolutely perfect before it is passed by this House. I ask, is that a sensible principle to follow? Is that a criterion that we could apply, for instance, even in private life? Suppose Henry Ford has said, "I have a great idea for a production line to produce cars but I have not
10466

December 14, 1971
Income Tax Act
got it absolutely perfect; therefore, we are not going to produce cars. We will need to do more and more research on this. "Or imagine the president of an underwear company saying, "Should we have buttons or zippers?"


Mr. Ricard:: What kind of comparison is that?


John (Moody) Roberts: "Should we make long legs or short legs?"


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: That is childish.


John (Moody) Roberts: "Should we make short arms or long arms?"


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Childish, childish.


John (Moody) Roberts: "We shall need to research and determine whether a market"-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I think the parliamentary secretary should be allowed to make his speech.


An hon. Member:: This no speech.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: These are very silly remarks.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why hon. members should be so exercised about underwear.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: The hon. member is talking absolute nonsense, that is why.


John (Moody) Roberts: "If something itches, they scratches."
You might say the same thing, I suppose, about choosing a wife. You might say that you like a woman very much but that she could be an inch or so taller, or that her nose is too long and that you are not going to get married until you find the 100 per cent perfect wife.
I suggest that we do not act that way in private life or in government. I do not believe the Leader of the Opposition, when he was Premier of Nova Scotia, acted in such a way and would not do something until he was absolutely sure that what he planned to do was 100 per cent perfect. Maybe that is how he did operate and that may explain the difficulties the province was in when he left.
The Leader of the Opposition seems to adopt the principle that the best is the enemy of the good. I suggest there is another approach to this legislation, and that is that we should be sure it is better than what we have at the present time. This I think we can be sure of. After ten years of debate and discussion, the tax proposals the government has brought in, even if not 100 per cent perfect are certainly an enormous improvement over the system we have at the present time. There is the old Chinese proverb that the longest journey starts with a single step. We still have a journey to go in respect of tax reform, but the measures of this government are an enormous and giant step forward and should be supported.
There is only one other argument the Leader of the Opposition advanced. He repeatedly stated that no member of the House understands this legislation. I do

not believe that is true. I think there are members, at least on this side of the House, who understand it. The temptation is to say that the Leader of the Opposition, in saying that no one understands it, is speaking only for himself. But I ask, for just a moment's reflection, how does the Leader of the Opposition know that no one understands it? Has he carried on a survey, or has he cross-examined members on this side of the House? How has he arrived at the certainty that no one on this side understands the legislation?
I suggest that a rational explanation of his statement is that it is speculation on his part which really springs from political expediency. He believes it would be popular to say that, knowing that he has not researched that statement, and therefore he says it and keeps on repeating it. Even if it were true that no one in this House understands all the complexities of this legislation, I suggest that is not the relevant consideration. Because I suggest that the bulk of hon. members on this side of the House certainly understand the legislation as it applies to the interests of their constituents. In those areas of tax reform which are of vital concern to the people they represent, I suggest members have informed themselves of the implications of the government's proposals and that therefore collectively the House has a very good view of the collective importance of these measures.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to say a great deal more about the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. I was frankly puzzled that with his mellifluous oratory he had attacked on the basis of a few words of mine which were misconstrued in a newspaper report.


James Aloysius McGrath: You put your foot in it, and you know it.


John (Moody) Roberts: I had not really accepted the view expressed by many of my colleagues that the opposition was obstructing this legislation. I thought it was sheer, normal dithering on their part. But after looking at the comments of the Leader of the Opposition I have come to the conclusion that there is another explanation for their failure to present much in the way of a view on tax reform, with the exception of two areas where I confess they have expressed views of some importance to the House. I refer to co-operatives and the basic herd.
The official opposition has a paucity of views on tax reform. Unlike the New Democratic Party, the official opposition abstained from expressing any views on tax reform at the end of the Commons committee stage. The NDP presented its views on tax reform. I salute the NDP for what it did. I do not agree with the details of their suggestions or their approach, but at least they had the gumption to say where they stand on tax reform. The official opposition does not even have that gumption. I suspect this stems from the fact that they do not know where they stand on tax reform.
Sure, they are for the easy things. They are all in favour of tax cuts and the things everybody is in favour of. They are in favour of motherhood. But they are not prepared to come to grips with the question of where we are going to find the tax revenue to pay for these things. They are prepared to give things away but they do not say where we are to get the money to pay for them. They do not have a clear view of where they want to go. That is the real tragedy of this debate and of this situation. It is not that a
December 14, 1971

limitation of time has been imposed or that we have had a long and tedious debate. The real tragedy is the abdication of responsibility on the part of the official opposition to give a clear indication of where it stands in respect of tax reform.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, in his speech the member who spoke before me did the best he could to apologize to the House for what he said in Thunder Bay, Ontario, yesterday; in any event, his assertion was false. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, we have to take his word for it in view of the Standing Orders of this House. But when newspapers report that he said such and such, and when we can check his comments by listening to tapes, I say that, in reciting his mea culpa tonight, in trying to convince his party colleagues not to be afraid, and claiming that it was not what he said, he merely wants to reingratiate himself with his leader, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I admire that hon. member very much, but in trying to build an argument by humiliating the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Stanfield) who has loyally tried to fight against a bill which in his mind is not acceptable to the Canadian people, I say the hon. member has shown unforgivable weakness.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I do not believe that in my remarks I referred to the insincerity of the Leader of the Opposition. If I did do that in inadvertence, I certainly withdraw it.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: It was not in inadvertence.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I take note of the hon. member's apologies that will be transmitted to the leader of the official opposition in proper time and place.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak tonight to give my wholehearted support to the honest and loyal fight our party led against the bill now before us. Government members do not seem to be aware that when the opposition makes suggestions to the House or criticizes a legislative measure, it does so because it represents 50 per cent of the Canadian population.
Contrary to what the previous speaker said, the opposition, particularly the official opposition, feels it has accomplished its duty. It took its responsibilities, particularly in a difficult fight, at a time when we had to be concerned with the overall economic activity of Canadians.
I would like to thank the leader of the official opposition who did not hesitate to step forward and lead the charge against the white paper introduced by the Minister of Finance. He has not worked in vain because the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), immediately after meeting with Canadian businessmen to explain to them the whole impact of the bill before us, agreed that some provisions had to be withdrawn and some suggestions and advice given by the leader of the opposition could be accepted.
Mr. Speaker, I know it is not easy to administer the federal Department of Finance.
Income Tax Act
In fact, when the Prime Minister appoints an hon. member as Minister of Finance he is more or less sending him to the stake. While opposition members sometimes speak harsh words to the Minister of Finance, these are primarily addressed to the government, which has called upon him to bring forward the bill we are now considering.
We are entitled to make suggestions. And when the hon. member who spoke before me said our party has no fiscal policy he should just peruse Hansard and read there all the amendments and suggestions we submitted during the debate in an effort to improve the legislation the Minister of Finance has introduced in the House.


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Saint-Boniface):: That's a good one.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for St. Boniface often makes comments. I hold him in high esteem because he is a French-Canadian from the West, but we would like him to rise when he speaks. Let him make a good speech and we will listen to him. If he makes sense, we shall applaud him.
Mr. Chairman, I readily admit that the majority in this House has the right to govern and may go as far as applying Standing Order 75c in order to force a bill through. But I object to the manner in which the government has applied that Standing Order if 200 clauses of the bill and 100 amendments moved by the government are set aside, if we do not have time to look fully into them, and the government merely says: Since the bill must come into force on January 1st, we must apply Standing Order 75c, bring out the steam-roller and try to muzzle the opposition.
Mr. Speaker, such is the government's responsibility. The people will decide whether it was logical for the government to ask the opposition to adopt this bill when 200 sections have not been studied in committee of the whole nor have the 100 amendments that the government wanted to propose. The people will have to judge the actions of the government when they are called upon to express their views on its policies.
Why this haste, Mr. Speaker, to put the Act into force on January 1? Does the Minister of Finance need money in a hurry? Is he following the orders of his officials who have given him this deadline of January 1? At any rate I cannot accept that the Minister of Finance should go to the other place and tell the senators: We shall send you the bill, study it quickly and have faith in me; we shall bring in amendments later.
This means that the legislative proposal of the Minister of Finance is not perfect, and that is why we were asking the government to give us more time to study it.
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Official Opposition rightly denounced yesterday some aspects of the bill stating that the government was creating a tax jungle. It is so true, as I said a moment ago, that the Minister of Finance will be unable, as I will be myself, to file his own income tax return next year, this tax maze being full of inconsistencies and interpretation problems.
24725-34 i

December 14, 1971
Income Tax Act
Yesterday, the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) said that he had asked the Minister of Finance to draw up interpretation clauses in the bill. It is a fine suggestion, Mr. Speaker. Even the government members do not understand the bill, since they ask the minister to draw up interpretation clauses so that the bill may be understood more easily, not only by hon. members but also by all the people.
Mr. Speaker, the great losers, with the passage of this bill, are the provinces. It is not only the opposition which has been gagged by the application of Standing Order 75C, but also the provinces which came here for the federal-provincial conference asking the Minister of Finance to postpone the implementation of this bill. This postponement was meant to try and reconcile the provincial tax structures with the federal ones which are now being put to us. This was a very legitimate request aimed at coordinating the priorities of the provinces and the requirements of the federal government in the field of taxation. There again, the Minister of Finance said no to the provinces. This bill had to be implemented by the 1st of January.
Mr. Speaker, above all one should consider the harmful consequences this bill will have for the middle classes. One should also consider the disastrous effects this bill will have on small businesses. We know that the rate of assessment will be raised considerably for the small businessmen and the small tradesmen; we know also that the benefits of the small businessmen and the small tradesmen are reinvested in order to create more jobs. However this new kind of taxation means plain death for the small businessmen and the small tradesmen. Heaven knows- and my colleagues from Quebec may confirm it-the small businessmen and the small tradesmen represent a power in Quebec. If a bill takes away even more money from them the tradesmen will not be able to use it to develop, to improve their enterprise and to create additional ones.
Mr. Speaker, I must say that this party, which is the official opposition party, will support the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). And I think that by moving this amendment, the hon. member is working towards a lowering of the poverty line.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to the description of poverty given in the Senate report on poverty, which says:
The over-all poverty rate is approximately 25 per cent; one Canadian in four is a member of a family unit whose income is below the poverty line.
Over half of all low-income families live in either Quebec or Ontario.
Nearly two thirds, or 63 per cent, of low-income family heads are members of the labour force. More than a quarter (27 per cent) of all low-income family heads are 65 years of age or older.
Mr. Speaker, I believe a Quebec member should rise in his place and speak in the House in order to protect low-income Canadians, especially those in his province, since according to statistics, French Canadians are the poorest people in Quebec. In the Montreal area, French Canadians draw the smallest salaries. They come just before the Italians; all others are better paid than them. The amendment moved tonight tends to ease the burden of the average wage-earner. All Quebec members should
[Mr. Asselin.j
support that amendment that tends to help the average people in Quebec which still live in extreme poverty.
Mr. Speaker, we must give those have-not people hope for a better life. But where do we find such hope in this bill? Some may say that a million Canadian people will not pay taxes anymore, that exemptions will be $1,500 for single persons and $2,850 for married people! This is a farce, Mr. Speaker! How can one expect single persons or married people with extremely low incomes to survive? They do not live, they merely exist. The middle-income people are overtaxed. All my colleagues from Quebec know that. Let us look at the salaries paid in the Quebec plants. The workers are often given a five-inch long cheque, but once deductions are made there is but an inch and a half left.


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice):: What does the difference go?


Martial Asselin: It is being used to pay the taxes of the Minister of Finance.
Mr. Speaker, a wage-earner with four children, who earns between $5,000 and $6,000 a year cannot possibly live decently, considering especially that the cost of living has steadily increased over the last two or three years. As for the average plant worker, his tax is withheld, so there is no possible loophole for him.
Corporations and other public agencies can find loopholes. Indeed, chartered accountants and tax lawyers have informed us that they have already spotted about one hundred loopholes which will enable large corporations to pay less in taxes.
Mr. Speaker, I do not suggest that this whole bill is worthless. I am more realistic than that. But I suggest that the government has, in many areas, taken back what he has given. Do you need instances of that? Here they are: Unemployment insurance benefits have been raised, but the recipients will have to pay tax thereon.
Grants are given for retraining, but they will be subject to taxation.
Scholarships are granted to postgraduate students, but even these will be taxed at a certain level.
Our party has never stopped to fight for the farmers and yet, this bill does not spare them. We have had to wage a desperate battle in order that co-operatives and credit unions could keep the vested interest of which they had been deprived by the minister.
Mr. Speaker, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is to the effect that the rate applicable to the first $500 of taxable income be reduced from 17 to 2 per cent and it proposes a reduction of $75 at all levels.
For once, Mr. Speaker, I agree with a socialist member of this House. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said that 22 years ago he had spoken on an amendment similar to the one he moved tonight. The initiative he showed tonight is a true attempt to reduce the heavy tax burden, as he said a while ago, of the middle class citizen who cannot pay any more taxes.
December 14, 1971

If an average wage-earner gets between $5,000 and $6,000 a year and spends $80 to feed his family, without mentioning the cost of clothes and leisure, municipal and school taxes, he cannot pay more taxes.
I fail to see why this House should not vote in favour of the amendment now before us.
Mr. Speaker, as I said a while ago, we have supported this amendment at the committee stage and we will support it on third reading because I think the present exemption system is already outdated. It would be better to try and establish a credit system which would give more justice to the Canadians who still want to work.
Those were roughly the objectives mentioned in the Senate report on poverty. I would like to read again for the information of my colleagues the beginning of the chapter where they define the part that should be played by the government in its fight against poverty.
"Fight against poverty" was a very nice slogan when the government under the Rt. Hon. Mr. Pearson put it forward during the 1963 election campaign. Everybody was happy. People said, at least we are going to have a government that will fight poverty. And we are still waiting for the beneficial effects of that fight against poverty.
And after that they have burked the fight against poverty by saying that once they are in power they will set up a just society in Canada.
Surely this bill will not bring about this just society promised by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau).
And for the information of my colleagues opposite who still do not know what kind of action the government should undertake to control poverty, I will quote an extract from the report of the Special Senate Committee on Poverty in Canada:
Economic growth has had little effect on the nature and dimensions of poverty in Canada. Our failure to achieve full employment and our acceptance of policy choices which increase unemployment contribute directly to the spread and perpetuation of poverty. While the economic system, by itself, can never eliminate poverty, a healthy and expanding economy provides the environment essential to a comprehensive attack on poverty.
These are the objectives any responsible government should have in mind when it undertakes to fight poverty.
Therefore, I wish our friends opposite would give up politicking for the time being. Of course, I admit that party discipline is important. I have met with the same situation when I was a minister of the Crown and this is the reason whenever I am given the opportunity to speak on our current parliamentary system I contend that it needs to be amended so that hon. members may vote as often as possible according to their own conscience and not necessarily to support their party.


Colin David Gibson: Are you
looking forward to a republic?


Martial Asselin: What did you say?


Colin David Gibson: I asked a very honest question.


Martial Asselin: Is that for you a republic?
Mr. Speaker, I therefore say that we should study this amendment very carefully. I should ask honourable members especially those from Quebec who are still sincere
Income Tax Act
and who wish to help the middle class, to vote in favour of the amendment now before the House.
Mr. Speaker, I regret that the minister of Finance is not here tonight, because I should have liked, in closing, to wish him . . .


An hon. Member:: He is here.


Martial Asselin: My eyes deceive me. Where is he? In closing, may I express the hope that the minister of Finance, when he is called upon to share the tranquillity of the Senate-which is not going to be the case soon for his parliamentary secretary, who is now nodding in the affirmative-and is free from political worries, will regret having fathered this tax monster, which, in my opinion, in many respects will never serve the interests of the Canadian people.


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, we appear to be in the closing stages of a very long and detailed debate. It may be said that Parliament and the people of Canada have talked about tax reform for almost ten years, certainly officially. The conversations, the meetings, the discussions and dialogues began in earnest on August 27, 1962, when the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) announced with great personal pride the appointment of a hand-picked Royal Commission on Taxation. To the thunder of Conservative approval, he said on that occasion:
I am pleased that Mr. Carter has agreed to undertake this most important and onerous task, possessing as he does a unique knowledge of the Canadian tax structure.
The Conservatives, Mr. Speaker, were delighted with this appointment.


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


Raymond J. Perrault: They said, together with the other parties in the House of Commons, that we badly required tax reform and a greater degree of equity in the tax structure. The need, we were told, was beyond dispute. Since then, no subject has been considered so exhaustively and in such minute detail as has been the future form of taxation in this country. Following the Carter report came the white paper in 1969. We all recall those days.


An hon. Member:: Yes, a nightmare.


Raymond J. Perrault: When the white paper was published, instead of investing time in the House of Commons advancing counter proposals and ideas in this proper forum, the leader of Her Majesty's Official Opposition mounted his white charger, like Mr. Clean, and went from coast to coast. What did he say? He raced across the country saying, "The government is planning to ram the contents of the white paper through Parliament and I warn you, my friends, my fellow Canadians, that the government should not be believed when the Minister of Finance says repeatedly that there will be changes." He said this despite the fact that when the white paper was brought to the floor of the House of Commons one of the first comments of the minister was, "I invite proposals and suggestions even from the other side of the House

December 14, 1971
Income Tax Act
because we want a sound system of taxation in this country".
But there continued the distortion of the intent and purpose of this government. A coast to coast gallop spread confusion wherever he went saying, "I will defend this country against what they are trying to ram through". Suddenly, the scenario was changed because the Minister of Finance, true to his words, invited submissions from every part of the land. The government received 211 submissions along with 1,093 other representations and innumerable letters from members of the government and a few from the opposition as well. The committee held 146 meetings, the committee reported, recommended changes and amendments were proposed and many accepted. Then there has been more debate on the resultant bill before us.
Despite this unparallelled democratic process, charges are made of muzzling free speech in some of the badly-informed editorials in the newspapers and by the shrill voice of dissent from the other side of the House. These accusations are simply preposterous. Some of the opposition members are men of real ability who must be embarrassed to have to give voice to such charges on the advice of some of the public relations men of the Conservative party.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: We heard this nonsense in the pipeline debate.


Raymond J. Perrault: They know that at some point governments must govern and at some point debates must be brought to a conclusion. Mr. Speaker, this is what I mean-and I am not going to quote from speeches made by former or present members of this government or great Liberals of the past; I am going to quote the spokesmen for the official opposition. The hon. Davie Fulton, who was a distinguished Minister of Justice in this House for many years, appeared at the Couchiching Conference in 1964 representing the Conservative Party, and he said:
But no matter what mathematical disposition has been arrived at by the voters, Parliament has the duty to get on with the business of the country; and the government has the right and responsibility to govern, so long as it enjoys the confidence of Parliament, or at any rate unless and until Parliament accepts the responsibility of defeating it-
He went on to say:
Having been provided first with an improved system of transacting the business of the House and the country, and second with the means and the opportunity to do their jobs more effectively, members can then accept as the framework within which to operate the disciplines and self-restraints inherent in the following-
I again emphasize that it was the official spokesman for the official opposition who said:
An important restraint which members should impose upon themselves is to accept as a matter of routine an "allocation of time" system as it operates in the United Kingdom Parliament, by which representatives of each party meet in advance to decide how many days will be spent on each major matter of government legislation. In the unusual circumstance where it is not possible to obtain agreement, the government itself takes responsibility for- and there is a note upon-a motion for allocation of time on the matter in question.
The right hon. member for Prince Albert, speaking in this House on July 21, 1960, as recorded at page 6672 of Hansard, said:

I see no reason why that debate should not be reduced so far as the number of days is concerned. Immediately, I suggest that the opposition will say that they are being throttled.
That was said by the former leader of the Conservative party. In a great speech, he went on to say:
I am not taking the United Kingdom Parliament as an example for our Parliament, but it is the mother of Parliaments, and I am going to refer to some of the things which could be done. I think there is no reason why that debate should not be reduced so far as the number of days is concerned.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am extremely sorry to interrupt the hon. member. It is my impression we are discussing third reading of the tax bill and are not engaged in debate on the closure motion moved this afternoon. It is not relevant.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think that an effort must be made by hon. members to make speeches which from near and far refer to the amendment before the House. I appreciate the point made by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt). He is quite right; what we are debating now is third reading of this bill. I must say that having listened to the debate on third reading I have a suspicion that a number of members on both sides of the House have strayed from time to time from either the amendment before the House or the general principle of the bill.
I agree with the hon. member that an effort should be made by hon. members not to revive the debate which took place during the two hours which preceded the vote on the motion under Standing Order 75C. There is no point in further discussing this issue. We should make an effort to concentrate on the bill which is before us on third reading and, more particularly, the amendments which are before us from time to time.


Raymond J. Perrault: With Your Honour's indulgence, may I point out to the House that last night the House leader of the official opposition spoke purportedly on third reading, but he spoke entirely on the subject of closure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Raymond J. Perrault: Earlier in this debate there were frequent references to closure and the alleged attempt of this government to restrict free discussion.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Raymond J. Perrault: I am not willing to remain silent when these kinds of charges are bandied about as is being done frequently in this debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Raymond J. Perrault: I suggest, Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) is rising on a point of order.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I certainly do not mean to interrupt the hon. member. I want to be exact with my submissions. It is my understanding that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has a motion before the House. Listening to members opposite, I am surprised that it has not been touched on at all this evening. With due respect to all hon.
December 14, 1971

members, I would remind them that the motion we are supposed to be debating at this time reads as follows. I may be quoting it imprecisely because I am referring to the motion as it was read last night.
That Bill C-259 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole House for the purpose of reconsidering the proposed new section 117(1) as set out in clause 1 on pages 313 and 314. and in particular for the purpose of reconsidering the changing of the figure "1796" in line 33 on page 313 to "2%" and consequentially reducing the amount at the beginning of each of the paragraphs (b) to (m), both inclusive, on page 314, by $75.
That is the motion.


Some hon. Members:: En frangais.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I hear some hon. members saying, "En frangais." I remind hon. members that this is a bilingual country. If I choose to speak in English, I think that should be accepted without remarks from the other side.


Mr. Speaker:: 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.
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. It may be that the remarks being made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault) are merely introductory and he will eventually reach the gist of his speech. I hope this point will be reached very soon.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Let's talk about tax credits.


Raymond J. Perrault: If I did not know the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) better, I would say he is terrified of parliamentary democracy. He talks about freedom of speech. I know him better than ever to accuse him of that.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Explain.


Raymond J. Perrault: I am talking directly about this motion to refer the bill back to committee. I do not think it should be referred back.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Raymond J. Perrault: I am citing specific instances where great Conservatives of the past have spoken out in support of the efforts of the government to expedite the passage of legislation in this House. If words of their former leaders terrify them, there is little hope for them.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Louder and funnier.
Income Tax Act


Raymond J. Perrault: In a reference essentially to the business of referring back, Churchill said on November 29, 1944:
Do not suppose that you can strengthen parliament by wearying it, and in keeping it in almost continuous session. If you want to reduce the power of parliament, let it sit every day in the year, one-fifth part filled, and then you will find it will be the laughing stock of the nation,-
These quotations suggest that this proposal to refer back is unsound. I remind the distinguished member from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who advanced this resolution of his words in 1964 when, in a moment of great candour, he said:
Parliamentarians start with a notion that freedom of speech somehow means freedom to talk forever. Cutting off debate is felt to be a denial of a basic, democratic right. But the fact is that we do this in many ways in Parliament. The forty minute limit or the thirty minute limit or the twenty minute rule that we have are denials of unlimited free speech.
In the same address he said:
The amount of business is increasing so much that I think, that we have to think more in terms of getting things done, and I think that this can be done without interfering with freedom of speech.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I said it again this afternoon.


Raymond J. Perrault: I hope members will consider these remarks to be relevant to the present resolution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Where were you this afternoon? I said it then.


Raymond J. Perrault: I hope members will admit there is relevancy here. There is a special quality of fantasy about the charges levelled by the opposition. The attempts of the opposition are like a sailboat in a becalmed sea desperately seeking any breeze which they hope may carry them to the haven of government.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: There is a lot of wind over there.


Raymond J. Perrault: What is the name of the game? The opposition sees a political opportunity in the issue of tax reform. Some of their members are abroad in the land spreading confusion and misunderstanding everywhere. In the House their efforts to bring forth the kind of amendments which would make this even sounder legislation have been sporadic, disconnected and halfhearted. How else can one explain the failure of the opposition to provide viable alternative proposals?
The resolution which is under debate is a small one designed to harry and delay. It does not go to the basic substance of this tax reform measure. Is it because some members of the opposition are seeking political support from those who want no reform at all, from those who cling to the status quo, those who say, "Change anything as long as it does not affect us"?
Together with other members of the finance committee I spent most of the summer of 1970 listening to representations from dozens of interests across this land. Some of them were along the lines of the amendment before us. Many of them were excellent. Many of them are reflected in the tax reform bill. To listen to the hundreds who brought forward their ideas was to be convinced that

December 14, 1971
Income Tax Act
there is simply no consensus as to what constitutes an equitable system of taxation. I might say that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) encouraged the finance committee to obtain the very best expert advice from all parts of the country with respect to the area covered by this resolution as well as others. It was not long before we realized that there were profound differences of opinion among these experts as to what might best be done.
It may be said without contradiction that taxation is such a complex and controversial subject that even to achieve absolute agreement among members of any one party in this House would be utterly impossible. All parties profess to urge tax reform but there is not even agreement among government members, or members of the NDP, members of the Conservative party or of the Creditistes as to what might constitute the soundest system.
The violent statements of the official opposition today are in total variance with the posture of that party in 1962 when the Carter commission was conceived by them. In those years they rushed around the country claiming they would introduce major changes in the Canadian tax law. But what a difference a decade makes. Today they deny any paternity of the infant they fathered in 1962. They disown any connection with it. The words "Carter commission" are X-rated by every Tory Primrose Club in Canada today.
These are the concerns some of us feel today; the rabid tax reformers of 1962 now want only tax reductions accompanied by no other discernible or definable changes. They do not want anything at all which might cause any section of the electorate to be unhappy or dismayed. They want all the tax reductions, but they are content to leave to the never-never land of the future the possibility that provincial and federal governments may require revenue. They want more debate, preferably so much debate that it will extend beyond the next election. They want to refer this measure back for months and months of renewed discussion, though we have been waiting more than long enough for constructive counter proposals to those which have been advanced.
I recall the classic reply of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) when he was asked for alternative ideas. He said; "That is not our job. It is up to you to provide ideas." Mr. Speaker, in 1971 a responsible opposition demands something more than an attitude of that kind.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Raymond J. Perrault: The fact of the matter is that should we accept this resolution or other mere ploys advanced by the opposition, we could debate this measure for another month or another year and not come any closer to agreement. After months of study, discussion and deliberation, after months of hearing witnesses, the opposition party which today urges delay, when faced with the moment of truth in the finance committee-and I was there-when the question was for or against, adopted a position of neutrality. Not yes or no, but a position of "dynamic" abstention. Yet the Leader of the Opposition and other members of his party almost took credit for the Commons report when it was produced. They claimed a victory over the government. On February 18 the Leader of the Opposition said:
The committee adopted 80 per cent of the criticisms I had been making. There are still defects in the House of Commons report but the concern now, of course, is how much of that report the government will accept.
An immense amount was accepted from that report. In June, the leader of the Conservative party said he and his supporters accepted those changes and in association with others accepted a considerable portion of the credit for having brought forward suggestions which brought about those changes. It is incredible, the tortuous twisting and the contradictions engaged in by the Leader of the Opposition.
The government and the minister are now being attacked on the ground that too many amendments have been made because, apparently, too many ideas contained in the Commons report have been accepted. They say the bill is incomprehensible. If they had spent more time examining the measure and less in galloping across the country on their alleged political crusade, they might have arrived at a better comprehension of what it contains. Imagine the screams of outrage which would have arisen from opposition benches if the government had announced that it had taken an inflexible position and intended to proceed without considering reasonable proposals for change. The message is clear. The tactic is: Play for time. Suggest nothing which would indicate a desire for serious tax reform. Hit the hustings and attempt to destroy confidence in Parliament and in the Prime Minister.
In a noon attack on the government in Vancouver on Monday, November 15, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen)-in passing I note that a McMaster University report says he has one of the worst attendance records in this House-


An hon. Member:: What about the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)?


Raymond J. Perrault: -told his audience about alleged efforts to impose new rules on the House of Commons. This tactic is part of the political game which is being played in Canada today. I quote from his speech as sent down by his office:
What then is there left to protect the supremacy of Parliament against this one-man despotism? The effectiveness of the opposition has been drastically weakened by a series of rules changes, again deliberately brought about by the leader of a government motivated by a lust for power.
Surely a party which aspires to govern this country should be at least capable of being candid and truthful with the people. One of the first measures taken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when he took office was to provide-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the hon. member is getting further and further away, if possible, from the amendment before us. I am prepared to recognize that the rule of relevancy has not been followed too closely during this debate either on second reading, in committee or since we began third reading.
One hon. member has drawn attention to the fact that yesterday and today we heard speeches which really had nothing at all to do with the amendment before the House. I suggest that an effort should be made by all hon. members to relate the speeches they make to the amendment
(Mr. Perrault.]
December 14, 1971

before us. I am not sure that those who succeed the hon. member will remember what I am saying now and will limit their contributions in the way suggested, but it seems to me that the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault) is not referring to the bill itself even in a general way. He should direct his remarks to the bill at least, and preferably to the amendment before us.


Raymond J. Perrault: The point I was attempting to make- perhaps inadequately-was that the charge has been made here that there has not been freedom of speech in this House to discuss this measure adequately. May I simply say that as hon. members know the rules changes were the result of consultation with the other parties. Almost all of them were agreed to by the other parties in the House. I will leave it at that. I simply do not think it enhances the reputation of the House to make the kind of charge which has been made by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen).
We are told that if we do not refer the bill back, our action will be tantamount to closure. Are arguments advanced in this vein to be taken seriously? If the official opposition had been successful in negotiating with the other parties in this House a sensible allocation of time, there would be no need for the government unilaterally to have to accept its responsibility to schedule time for this debate. When the opposition members parade around the country telling terror stories about alleged political repression, let them also tell Canadians that the rules changes almost without exception were adopted by all members of this House after years of procrastination.
On the subject of referring the bill back, the argument is advanced that we need more time for discussion and debate. We have talked about this subject for years in this House. There have been oceans of political bafflegab about the need for rule changes, the need to schedule time, the need to end the alleged legislative paralysis. Let opposition members tell the people of Canada about the actions of this government and the present Prime Minister to bring Canadian parliamentary rules more in line with the needs of the country and with the rules of enlightened parliamentary democracies in other parts of the world. Let them explain how they are spending the $200,000 granted to the opposition parties by the government to do the proper research so that parliamentary democracy can blossom. For years while in opposition the right hon. gentleman for Prince Albert had been saying that the opposition needed this kind of research money, but it took this government that is now accused of dictatorship to introduce the necessary legislation.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is rising on a point of order.


Donald MacInnis: I rise on a point of order. My point of order refers to the ruling made by Mr. Speaker just prior to his leaving the chair, at which time he drew the hon. member's attention to the fact that he was not discussing the matter now before the House. The hon. member's reference to the attendance of members on this side of the House was made without reference to the hon. member
Income Tax Act
from Edmonton on his side of the House. He has also referred to the $200,000 spent by the Leader of the Opposition, but failed to mention the more than $1 million spent by the Prime Minister's office. If such points are covered in the legislation before us, then the Chair is in for a rough ride if we all follow the hon. member's example.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has drawn to the Chair's attention that the parliamentary secretary was perhaps ranging a little outside the scope of the amendment now before the House. I would invite the hon. member to confine his remarks to the motion, as amended, now before the House.


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that there must be validity in some of the remarks I am making this evening to cause so much unhappiness on the other side of the House. When the House leader of the official opposition was totally irrelevant last night there was not one single demand on this side that he return to a precise discussion of the bill on third reading. The attitude toward democracy exhibited by the official opposition is an interesting one.
As we come to a vote on this important measure it seems to me that the main enemy perhaps is not the confusion that is alleged by our opponents but, after ten years of speculation and conjecture, the real enemy may be uncertainty. I receive more and more letters from people all over the country saying, "Whatever you are going to do, please do it". This climate of uncertainty is the real enemy. Business can live with certainty but not with uncertainty. The professions and the working people of this country can live with certainty but not with uncertainty. The hon. member's amendment would simply add to the uncertainty already existing in Canada.
Together with many other members of this House, I welcome the announcement of the Minister of Finance that further improvements are under consideration. Any good amendment, regardless of source, should be given consideration. Whether amendments originate from this or from the other side of the House-as hopefully they will-they should be given the same consideration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is one before the House now.


Raymond J. Perrault: One which is being considered and is found to be wanting. If this new tax measure suggests undue and unfair hardship for any section of this nation- and no tax measure in the world ever goes through any Parliament or legislature without amendment; interestingly enough, members of the opposition have cited no examples of uncomplicated tax changes from Great Britain, the United States or Europe where tax legislation is just as complicated-then let us act as soon as we can to introduce the appropriate changes. As I say, no tax bill has ever proceeded without change, often extensive change, and opposition critics are aware of this fact. Even the existing tax legislation has been changed year after year. The regulations have been changed. The opposition knows this, yet attempts to create the illusion that unless the government brings in a tax reform package which requires no change or amendment, it is deficient. Indeed, it is the sign of good tax policy and tax philosophy when a

December 14, 1971
Income Tax Act
government is flexible and willing to change and to adapt its legislation to the needs of the people.
Surely, our goal in Canada must be social equity, but it must also be a system of taxation that will encourage the economic development of this country. And just as surely, no member can, in conscience, vote against provisions such as the following: personal exemptions that are raised to $1,500 from $1,000 for single persons, and to $2,850 from $2,000 for married persons-indeed, we hope they will be even further raised; we are not saying those levels are the ultimate-child care expenses that are deductible up to $500 per child under 14, with a maximum of $2,000 per family; an employment expense deduction of 3 per cent of employment income, up to $150 a year, with no receipts needed; all taxpayers with married exemption and income solely from wages and salaries will pay less tax than at present; taxpayers with single exemption and employment income only will pay less tax on incomes under $8,000 and above this level the tax increase will not exceed $78 a year; all taxpayers age 65 and over will receive a special exemption of $650; the guaranteed income supplement will be exempt from tax; moving expenses will be deductible for taxpayers changing jobs; employer-paid living expenses for jobs at distant work sites will be made tax free to more taxpayers.
In addition to this, the limit on deductible donations to charities will be increased to 20 per cent of income, from 10 per cent. The standard deduction for medical expenses and charitable donations remains at $100. And the list goes on and on, Mr. Speaker. Surely the mover of this amendment is not suggesting that we should refer back a measure which will confer these and other benefits on such a wide section of the Canadian population. The bill does not represent perfection. The Minister of Finance has already said that certain changes are inevitable and has indicated areas where changes may be expected. Surely the members of this House can exhibit more courage, after ten years of discussion and dialogue, than to seriously entertain the proposal now before the House.
Many of us disagreed with certain of the proposals set forth in the original white paper; certainly I disagreed with many of them. Several of these problem areas are, however, problems no longer because of amendments that have been made.
Let us hope that Canadian tax reform is not going to be confined solely to the federal jurisdiction. As one who has served in a provincial legislature, I assure all hon. members that changes are required urgently as well, at other levels. After all, it is the people who pay the taxes and we must at all levels try to move this money around as equitably as possible. Therefore, let us hope that other reforms will be forthcoming in other jurisdictions.
One group in society that the present bill assists, at least in part, is the senior citizens. These older people in society are the first and tragic victims of rising costs and rising taxes. I have yet to hear any adequate defence of the present method of financing education. Senior citizens who earned their living when a dollar bought a dollar's worth of goods, older people who raised and educated their families, now must pay a totally unreasonable edu-

cation tax if they wish to retain ownership of their small homes. That applies in almost every province of this land.


An hon. Member:: But not in Ontario.


Raymond J. Perrault: At least we can express the hope that while we should aim for a more equitable tax system at the federal level, at the provincial and municipal levels there will be a fairer distribution of some of the inequitable burdens involving social welfare and educational costs especially. Our continuing philosophy as Canadians should be one which seeks the best system of taxation and a fair system-indeed, a system of taxation at all levels which, hopefully, will become a model for the world.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
Throughout the debate on Bill C-259, we, Creditistes, did not say much, although we had much to say. We realized it seemed almost useless to move amendments or to criticize the bill. We knew it was useless to try to have those amendments passed, because the government has the majority and had decided to go ahead against any and all valid suggestions.
And so, the government introduced Bill C-259, which is an extremely complex bill. I would say, right at the outset, that this so-called tax reform is anything but a reform, and that it it will probably lead to economic chaos the like of which we have never known.
Our economic system is in pretty bad shape at the present time and the enactment of Bill C-259 will make it harder because the citizens will be increasingly dispossessed.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for St. Boniface is rising on a point of order.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order.
I would like to ask the hon. member for Compton, following his comments, whether he is willing to make some suggestions. He has just mentioned that they would not be considered. I would like to ask him to make some so that we may consider them.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, that is not a point of order. The hon. member is interrupting debate, and that should not be permitted. Let the hon. member resume his seat. We are accustomed to his interruptions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


James Aloysius McGrath: Sit in your seat, Joe.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) has the right to raise a point of order. The Chair has the responsibility to decide whether it is a point of order. The hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe).


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, would you rule on the point of order that the hon. member raised? Was it in order, or was it not?
December 14, 1971


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I implied that it was not a point of order. I also said that if the hon. member had a point of order, I would so indicate. The Chair felt the hon. member had not raised a point of order and recognized the hon. member for Compton.


James Aloysius McGrath: All he does is interrupt people. [Translation]


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I know that many government members are annoyed with me, but I take my responsibilities and say what I believe to be the truth. I will make my whole speech accordingly.
I said earlier that the present system is still worse than the previous one. The taxes will drain the people dry and the number of welfare recipients will go up. The taxpayers have had their fill and they will be increasingly burdened and deprived, and the gap between the rich and the poor will be further widened.
We are strenuously object to this attitude, and we want to reassert that a lasting fiscal review should alleviate the entire tax burden. The greatest problem now is an already unduly high tax rate. This system has been subject to steady pressures during the past decades, because an excessive growth of public expenditures had to be checked.
In 1952, the expenditures of all governments amounted to 26 per cent of the gross national product. This percentage has increased steadily and public expenditures now account for 40 per cent of the gross national product. Should this trend persist, all the benefits of tax reform will disappear because there will be further tax increases, like the capital gains tax. We cannot stress sufficiently the need for a program of expenditures as well as for tax reform.
Nothing was considered with regard to an expenditure program which would allow Canadians to know where they are going. No, taxes are imposed. The intention is to tax capital gains, when, to a large extent, it is capital itself that will be taxed.
So, even if the tax system most efficiently creates and maintains equality between people, families and companies that make up the population of Canada and participate in its economic life either in production, consumption or capitalization, we have to realize that it is not in a mess of 707 pages of legal texts and over 2,400 codified paragraphs that we shall succeed in straightening out the affairs of the state. It is as if we were looking for a needle in a haystack.
Still I want to congratulate our courageous Finance Minister (Mr. Benson) who is beginning to show signs of weariness after so many preliminary pieces of work.
In the last ten years, even the Canadian Chamber of Commerce complained about the indecipherable complication of a great number of often contradictory details of the income tax legislation.
Mr. Speaker, even though I sit on the opposition side and belong to a political party whose name is Social Credit, I very definitely consider all legislation from the
Income Tax Act
center of today's world and the economic life of 1971-72 in Canada as it is now, haphazardly led by a Liberal majority government. With a realistic awareness of the situation of Canadians, strictly from an economic viewpoint, I should like to see much more effective and manageable and also more practical economic reforms and adjustments emerge from our parliamentary work.
When I think of the famous Carter report all 2,600 pages of it, when I think of the royal commission of inquiry on taxation reform that cost us more than $3.6 million, when I think of the many briefs submitted by most of our large groups of learned people, experts, economists, capitalists, trustees, financiers, manufacturers, national and international bankers, when I think of this voluminous undecipherable paper stack accumulated by joint committees on this matter, when I think of the "condensed" form of the famous White paper which has been under numerous attacks and purges imposed by the bureaucracy of governments or pressure groups or intermediaries, when I think that we still have to go through 707 pages of a new bill, page by page, paragraph by paragraph, I feel that this legislation will finally be passed much more out of exhaustion than ability and satisfaction from all participants and responsible people at all levels.
Mr. Speaker, the Committee on finance, trade and economic affairs received more than 3,000 briefs among which there were some from Ontario and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, truly outstanding briefs which were hardly taken into account in the drafting of this bill. And when all the briefs had been considered, the Committee of Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs produced its report which the government almost totally rejected, subsequently appointing an independent, highly-paid board to prepare another report, coming up with the notorious 707-page bill now before us.
Why go to so much trouble for such poor results? I don't believe we are that stupid. We all feel confined in the hermetic frame-work of old tax, economic and political structures. We long to change things to meet the needs of the people. Yet we want to retain them in order to satisfy the producers who benefit by the established structures which obviously can only increase the widening gap between the rich becoming richer and the poor becoming poorer. All the evil comes about because of the pretence of changing things to please the people, while allowing the same structures to go on having the same effects, in order to please the known or unknown people who control the established system.
I am not suggesting that we change the established system. No, that would just make things worse. Under present circumstances, it is not the system which needs changing. It has at least one merit, which is to preserve with strength and continuity the unbalanced planning which we are accustomed to. This is the good side of a strategic bourgeois pragmatism. Well planned imbalance is still better than complete chaos, civil war, revolution, and the destruction of those things in the system which are still good, positive, constructive, and profitable.
It is not the system of a planned imbalance which we must destroy. This system guides planning towards a national equilibrium between all citizens, all families and all companies which make up the whole economic life of Canada. This is one of the answers.

December 14, 1971
Income Tax Act
The conservative members have found some wonderful answers. They have made nice speeches, but I might say that nobody has really put forward other solutions than those proposed by the government. All this cannot happen by itself. Tax reform can and must play a formidable part, provided only that at the high administrative and departmental levels they redirect the economic planning of our nation to meet the needs of the consumers and to remunerate at the same time equitably and fully the labour and the capital of Canadian producers.
Instead of increasing taxes that would have been another of the possible solutions to put forward. It is certainly possible to find other practical solutions to administer the country and to balance the budget.
In trying to balance the economy by this ominous bill, we will take away from Canadians the main purchasing power they need as we increase taxes and impose taxes on capital. We will deprive many Canadian taxpayers of the necessities of life, and we should consider that, Mr. Speaker.
Those are the guidelines put as simply as possible.
Mr. Speaker, the general idea behind the economic direction should be reviewed in a completely different context from the monetary, economic and political mechanism. Until we grapple with those economic, political and monetary elements, the situation will never change. The present system can only bring more serious economic imbalance, more dissatisfaction among the population and an increase in the number of poor people.
All those facts are practically ignored or at least inadequately taken account of by those responsible for the economy both at the management and legislative levels.
I will not try to meet the set requirements. There is rejoicing about the success of banks, large financial, industrial, business and agricultural companies as well as large public, business, agricultural and semi-public corporations or public utilities such as hydros, railways, television, radio, etc. This perfect mixture of private enterprise and government enterprise leaves the population in complete confusion with no sign of hope for a solution simply because all those responsible for management are university graduates who are well known and conditioned to continue the requirements set in a system that is more than 40 years old.
So it is nobody's fault. Everybody abides by the law, even and above all presidents and directors of the largest banks and companies. If we talk to them about exclusive privileges that are granted to them by the government, either through administrative practices or in the form of reserves or tax exemptions, they answer bluntly, what would you do in our place? We are simply taking advantage of the laws passed by government. We are very anxious to obey existing laws. Who would find fault with that?
Mr. Speaker, we know that existing laws protect high finance and enable many high officials and large institutions of the land to pay almost no taxes because they can avail themselves of special legislation and special taxes; they are authorized to build up all sorts of reserves and are quite happy with the present system.
(Mr. Latulippe.]
The orders are well obeyed by university graduates who impose their will on governments and who subsequently administer banks and corporations according to the law.
Mr. Speaker, nobody is responsible for the present inflation, unemployment, poverty or economic imbalance. All this uneasiness results from protracted subservience to economic doctrines which were useful 40 years ago, and which still accommodate the scientists, the wealthy and the powerful masters of the established system, but are of no benefit to the people.
Bill C-259 does not take into account those economic facts.
We try to promote production and capitalization while comsumption is jeopardized for over 60 per cent of our population. We try to retrain workers and even technicians, once again to promote production, whereas consumption is ailing.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to say to the cabinet members and to the chairmen of our powerful banks and corporations that nothing is lost. Everything is in good working order and will work even better as soon as production, consumption and capitalization will be balanced at the individual, family and social levels. Many members forget this.
Since 1960, several royal commissions, several task forces made up of experts, several Senate or House committees, several White Papers, many official reports of the Economic Council of Canada, all prepared by the highest economic authorities in Canada, with the help of experts of foreign countries, have set forth all the aspects of the economic life in Canada, in particular the alleged causes of inflation, unemployment and poverty.
Inflation, unemployment and poverty are three distinct results of the same economic ill that can be called the national economic imbalance. And the more we shall implement Bill C-259, the more we shall experience that great imbalance which will unfortunately lead our people to adopt impractical solutions.
Why can't all those experts meeting together find the causes of the economic imbalance, propose solutions that would restore the economic balance? Why can't they agree on a single point?
The reason is a very simple one. All learned men, all experts, all economists, all directors of great institutions follow the same instructions laid down by the great universities of Europe or the United States, by university professors throughout the national or provincial universities, in all countries of the third world.
To all proposals that go against that universal general order, legislators have but one clear and precise answer, always the same, expressed in different ways, which may be summed up thus: After all, once in power, people must act according to what they learned at university.
Our legislators remain faithful to the economic dogmas of the past, dogmas that have been successful in their day but that are no longer applicable in the current situation which is different. Pragmatic people are no longer the fashion and they only perpetuate and protect the old dogmas, the old doctrines which are not adapted to modern times.
December 14, 1971

Instead of giving one's confidence to pragmatic people, we need thinkers who can keep pace with the realities of an economic world forever progressing. Production is carried out with modern methods, but distribution is done with old-fashioned ones, when it should be carried out in a modern way.
The greater the production, the lesser the consumption. The greater the capitalization, the lesser the distribution. And that is another problem that all citizens and all hon. members should take into consideration.
In the search for profit, for capital, for power, for domination, one forgets that it is for man that one produces, that it is man that must benefit from production and even from capitalization.
Powerful and manageable systems and organizations as well as monetary, economic and political machinery were set up. They produced $90 billion in 1971 which could fulfil everyone's needs while guaranteeing sufficient capital and all necessary investments. But they prefer to bury useless and cumbersome billions of dollars which create inflation and should be used as a purchasing power for people without any income so that every family may enjoy a decent standard of living and all citizens wishing to contribute to the national production may find work.
Without reducing any of the personal income, salary, interests, capital or dividends of those companies listed on the stock market, we could draw from hidden reserves which are neither declared nor taxed on consumption in order to insure a right to live for dependent citizens without work or capital in each and every home in Canada.
If we wanted to open our eyes, we could lower the cost of living, and allow Canadians to increase their income as our national production would rise. Today, our national production goes up and the income of most Canadians goes down. Our total corporate interests are showing a mere $6 billion of taxable profits as assigned to dividends and undistributed benefits-according to their public reports-but they manage to build up huge depreciation reserves and capital funds, to some extent with the blessing of our governments, the total of which might reach $24 billion for 1971.
Those tangible, inconspicuous or secret reserves, concealed in obscure annual reports by the people, not even by chartered accountants and experts, can be used to guarantee the security of the social national capital.
Why not put more emphasis on the vital human right of the family? Why could we not respect the rights and prerogatives of the human being? Why are we unable to resolve the unemployment problem which is getting worse every day? As a matter of fact, as we increase taxes of all kinds, more unemployment is being created, more citizens are dispossessed, destitute, discouraged for they can no longer cope with our present economic system which should enable them to enjoy a social life, a respectable life in a country bursting with wealth which we are not even able to distribute. There is no poverty in this country, there is undistributed riches. Since we live in an affluent society, let us organize the distribution of wealth. Therefore, this bill should contain the principle of distribution
Income Tax Act
of this wealth to secure an income, a stable economy for everyone.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to add a few words to the debate on the amendment which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) proposed to the tax reform bill. In a few days this bill will become the law of the country, with all the benefits it will bring to many taxpayers through reduced taxes. One of the sidelights of this debate has been the fact that the rule respecting time allocation has been invoked. This principle-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Closure, you mean.


Maurice Brydon Foster: The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) keeps using the wrong word. He has not thoroughly read the rule book or he would know that the phrase is "time allocation." This principle was adopted in July 1969, but has not been used until now. That is regrettable because, I believe, like many of the younger members who came here first in 1968, we should be moving toward handling the work of the House in a more orderly fashion. It seems to me that unless we find a system to do this using rules 75a, 75b or 75c or some other parliamentary device, we will continue to waste a lot of time and this House will rapidly become more irrelevant.
Members are in the House for much of the year, 10 or 11 months, and spend a shorter and shorter period of time in their ridings, taking weekend flying trips which most of us have learned to live with over the last few years. If we could adopt a system of programming our work, we might be able to spend one week in every eight in our constituencies. If we were to do this, we could better reflect the wishes of our constituents.
I compliment the three or four members of the official opposition who are in the chamber tonight. They are here at great personal sacrifice. The position of the opposition parties on this bill has been most interesting. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) would like to split the bill, taking all the goodies now, all the tax cuts which are proposed, and leaving all the other parts of the bill to be implemented at a later date. But he has never specified exactly when. That must be one of the most unworkable proposals ever made. It is like the man who says, "Well, I'll take my pay cheque but I won't bother paying any of my bills." The administrative complications of this proposal would make the tax jungle of the 1930s look like a formal garden by comparison.
The Leader of the Opposition says that he does not understand the tax bill. We will go along with that. We are inclined to agree that he does not understand it. After all, Mr. Speaker, he could not remember when he got a copy of the bill. He thought it came in just a couple of days before Parliament opened on September 7, when in fact the bill was distributed to every member of the House on July 12.


Donald MacInnis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I rise not only to question the hon. member's ability to count but to remind him that the tax bill now before the House was delivered from the Queen's Printer only within the last week. Therefore, his assessment as to when this bill

December 14, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
became available is wrong. Further, he might pay attention to what was said by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) to the effect that this bill is not yet complete. With the bribery that is going on in the other place and the legislation that will be brought forward in the new year, he doesn't know what he is talking about.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Rod Thomson (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, a short while ago I raised a question with the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Gillespie) asking if he would use his influence with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) to carry out some research and development with respect to farm machinery. He replied that he would look into the matter. Since I wanted to make sure that he would, I arranged to debate the matter on the "late show."
The Barber report suggests several things, but I shall begin by quoting something that is fact in this regard:
The commission was also asked to examine "the present and prospective competitive position of the Canadian agricultural machinery industry in Canadian and export markets" and to recommend "measures that could contribute to the expansion of efficient production of agricultural machinery." At the present time the Canadian share of farm machinery manufacturing in North America, about 7 to 8 per cent, is well below Canada's proportion of the region's farm machinery sales, around 12 per cent.
It is my basic contention that something should be done about that problem. To use the words of the Barber report at page 11-
The basic proposal being made is for a comparatively small (compared to such a body as the National Research Council) but highly expert research and evaluation unit controlled by a semiindependent governing board. The unit would have its own program of research designed to improve farm machinery. In addition it would be responsible for a greatly expanded program of research grants to Canadian universities. This would ensure a continuing flow of farm machinery technology suited to the needs of Canadian farms.
Then on page 12 we find this passage:
Thus the expanded program of research into farm machinery technology recommended above should give a valuable stimulus to the growth of farm machinery production in Canada. Small independent firms will benefit from the flow of new ideas generated by this research and from the availability of a larger number of qualified agricultural engineers in government research stations and at universities. The larger firms would be encouraged to locate more of their own research in Canada because of the much more favourable milieu that had been created for farm machinery research. And this should lead, in time, to an expansion in their manufacturing output in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the argument has been that the innovative process has been carried out frequently by small manufacturing firms. The reason I suggest an approach of this

nature is that often these people cannot afford the cost entailed. I should like to read from the report again, page 147, as follows:
The company that fails to improve its products at frequent intervals may find its marker share declining sharply ...
Changes in market share have often been very large within a few years. While not conclusive, these changes strongly support the view that product improvement is an extremely important competitive factor in the industry.
In his report, Professor Barber puts forward arguments in support of his point of view, and since that time he has also done this in Saskatchewan. The prairie governments are presently looking at such a testing agency. My suggestion to the Minister of State for Science and Technology is that he should also look at this testing agency in view of Professor Barber's comments and recommendations on this problem. We should consider, too, that this royal commission was an agency of the Liberal government, which must have been concerned or it would not have spent the money.
If a testing unit is not the best thing, then I suggest it is up to the present government and the minister, and perhaps also to the Minister of Agriculture, to suggest something better. I contacted a company in regard to a testing agency and they said that depending on the circumstances they could probably use such an agency in testing their machinery.
I am not suggesting that this should be a heavy-handed, bureaucratic type of organization which would say no to everything that a modern, innovated company might offer in the way of new ideas for manufacturing farm machinery. I do suggest that if such an agency is established it should be bright, imaginative, innovative and have a modern approach to developing a better farm machinery industry in Canada.


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, let me say by way of introduction how pleased I am to be able to respond to the bright and innovative hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson) who has impressed me over the years with his interest in research and development. He has played an active part before the estimates committee on more than one occasion. I can remember some perceptive questioning to the National Research Council and it may have been, as well, to the Science Council of Canada.
I am very much aware of his interest in research and development matters. I am also very much aware of his interest in agricultural matters. It is therefore no great surprise to me that he should couple his interest in research and development with that in agriculture and, in particular, the Barber commission report. I listened very carefully to his statements and references to pages 11 and 12 of the report and to page 147 in respect of development. I share many, if not all, of those sentiments.
In answering the specific question of whether the Minister of State for Science and Technology might recommend to the provincial premiers, either individually or collectively, some form of government assistance to a research or test facility, I have to report to him, as did the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Lessard) on an earlier occasion, that we have not yet received any request from the provincial premiers,
December 14, 1971

individually or collectively, or through any agency that they might designate with respect to the question. On October 26, 1971, as recorded in Hansard, the parliamentary secretary said:
As to the question raised concerning assistance from the federal government, I must say that up to now we have received no requests from provincial governments concerning present programs.
That is the same information that I have obtained as a result of my recent research on this question. Should the provincial premiers, again individually or collectively, or some agency of theirs make a request to us in this connection, we would be very pleased to give it consideration.



AIRPORTS-COMPLETION OF NEW TERMINAL AT TORONTO INTERNATIONAL-DECISION ON SITE OF NEW FACILITY

Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, on December 3 I raised the question of the much needed additional facilities at Toronto International Airport. The air travelling public, I am sure, welcomed the minister's reply that extra workers have been hired on the job and that the pace of construction will be increased so that the second terminal in Toronto will be ready for use in April and fully completed by next June. However, we are still awaiting the long overdue announcement of the federal government's decision on the site of a second airport for Toronto and the neighbouring region. We understand and commend the federal government's efforts to consult the Ontario government, but we cannot condone unnecessary delay and indecision with respect to a second airport to serve the greater Toronto metropolitan area.
Tonight I ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), through his parliamentary secretary who is in the House, to tell us who or what is causing this intolerable indecision. I am not exaggerating when I say that today Toronto needs better facilities for international air traffic. This means a federal airports' policy which also takes into account the needs and interests of the people of greater Toronto and their neighbours.
I would strongly emphasize that increased international landing rights in Toronto for certain airlines is an urgent matter. The present policy of restricting landing rights in Toronto to only a few international airlines not only causes inconvenience and loss of precious time to many travellers but also additional expense due to extra landings and transfers. Furthermore, many international travellers from the cosmopolitan Toronto area must now transfer at New York due to lack of landing rights at Toronto. In view of these factors I urge the federal government to grant international landing rights in Toronto for such airlines as Alitalia, Lufthansa, SAS, KLM, LOT, Czecho-Slovak and other airlines whose passengers wish to fly into or out of Toronto.
To accommodate the extra flights, facilities at the present Toronto airport must be further improved and a second airport to accommodate future traffic must be built without further delay. Statistics available from the Board of Trade of metropolitan Toronto show that in recent years Toronto airport has recorded between 30 per
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
cent and 40 per cent more domestic and international passengers arriving and departing on scheduled flights than Montreal International Airport and that the gap between the two has been widening. I therefore urge that the Minister of Transport satisfy the needs of the travelling public and contribute to the growth of Canadian tourism and trade by extending landing rights for certain international airline carriers in a spirit of understanding and good will.
In conclusion, I think the parliamentary secretary should tell us tonight when an announcement will be made about the site and plans for a second airport to serve the Toronto area. Who, or what, is delaying this announcement, and why has it not been decided to extend landing rights at Toronto to meet the requests and satisfy the needs of those of the public who travel by air?


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to reply briefly to the questions raised by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz). I realize how important these matters are to him and to members from southern Ontario. The subjects of the location of the new international airport for Toronto and region and the construction schedule of terminal II at Malton have been raised on numerous occasions in the House. On the first item, hon. members are aware of the ongoing discussions between the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) and his officials and his counterpart in Ontario and provincial representatives. The matter is a complex one, but progress is being made.
With respect to terminal II, work will now proceed at an accelerated rate. The minister informed the hon. member as to the new contractual arrangements that have been entered into with the contractor. This will have the effect of not only ensuring that the schedule will be met on time but that more workers will be hired during the winter months. The Minister of Transport informed the hon. member from Don Valley (Mr. Kaplan) on November 10 that the first module is expected to be completed by April 30, and the remaining two by June 30.
The hon. member for Parkdale also mentioned a number of items tonight which I shall be pleased to bring to the minister's attention.



SHIPPING-MAINTENANCE OF SERVICE ON WEST COAST OF VANCOUVER ISLAND

Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, since I first learned of the decision to withdraw subsidies to coastal shipping services on the west coast of Vancouver Island, effective December 31, I have been pressing the matter with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) and the Canadian Transport Commission. I did not consider an answer given to me by the Minister of Transport on November 30 a satisfactory one so I put the question down as an item for the adjournment debate.
On December 8 I again raised this matter in a question to the minister and received from him the reply that the Canadian Transport Commission had agreed to an extension of the subsidies to the two shipping firms involved for a period of six months from the December 31 deadline. For this answer I wish to thank the minister and, through him, the Canadian Transport Commission. This

December 14, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
extension at least gives a breathing spell to the people involved who were facing the prospect of imminent withdrawal of the only practicable means of having essential supplies delivered to their communities. Hopefully, it also means there will be an opportunity for rational public discussion of the whole complex question of transportation for people and goods to and from the communities scattered along Vancouver Island's rugged west coast.
There are, I feel, certain facts related to what I can only term as this near disaster which should be brought out at this point. First of all, I want to make it clear that existing transportation by any and all of the means now available is unsatisfactory, or costly, or both. Second, in-camera communications between the federal government, the provincial government and those engaged in the transportation business about something which so vitally affects the lives and the future of so many citizens is simply not good enough. On matters of this kind, people simply should not be left in the dark. Nor should it be left so the people's elected representative hears about it more or less accidentally at the eleventh hour.
At this point I am not seeking to lay the blame on any particular quarter. I recognize that the water transport committee of the CTC has not the kind of statutory mandate to require public notice and to order public hearings, as has the railway transport committee in connection with proposed changes in railway services. I have argued this point many times on the floor of this House; I have introduced amending bills, but to no avail. The people on the Pacific coast dependent on water transport have continued to be left at the mercy of what operating firms conceive to be an economic opportunity for themselves, or to the good graces of what the water transport committee or the provincial authorities decided in private were necessary subsidies.
The third point I would like to make is that constitutionally, under the British North America Act, the federal responsibility is for transportation which is interprovincial. Transportation which is entirely within a province is a provincial government responsibility. This does not, however, gainsay the fact that historically, for reasons many of which may now be lost in the mist of time, the federal government has accepted a responsibility for support of transportation services, particularly with reference to shipping services which are intraprovincial. This is certainly true with respect to the west coast of Vancouver Island where continuous support of this kind has been provided going back beyond the memory of most people now living; certainly back to the days of the good ship Maquinna whose name is still a byword among old-timers on the west coast. Abrupt withdrawal of such support without any public notice is, in my view, unjustifiable.
The fourth point I would like to make to try to keep the record straight is that the proposal of the federal authorities, which was to have taken effect on December 31 and which I understand was made known to the government of the province about a year ago, provided for an increase in the total amount which the federal government would commit to the support of water transportation on the British Columbia coast, with the proviso that it was all to be concentrated on improving and expanding the services to the northern coast and the Queen Charlotte Islands.
This, of course, is cold comfort to the people on Vancouver Island who, as matters stood on December 8, were being left completely stranded with neither federal nor provincial governments prepared to accept any responsibility.
I am happy that in the face of this situation the minister and the Canadian Transport Commission were prepared to listen to the cold, hard facts which I and some of my constituents presented to them without any histrionics or shouting and agreed to a six months' reprieve. This to me is an example of a sensible argument being sensibly listened to. The results would indicate that in this case at least it was more effective than wild and irresponsible shouting.
If the minister of municipal affairs for British Columbia was correctly quoted in the press as saying, "There will be no operating federal subsidies whatsoever on the west coast, but on the east coast they will continue", he was making a wild and irresponsible statement, not in accordance with the facts, about which he must or should have known as a minister of the provincial government. The pedalling of this sort of irresponsible propaganda, which seems to issue in an almost endless stream from this minister's mouth, does nothing to help solve the problems of the Canadian people, either local or national.
I hope the British Columbia minister more immediately responsible for dealing with transportation matters will not take the same line during the next six months, but will be prepared to discuss rationally the whole complex question of adequate transportation, at reasonable cost, for the people who dwell in the communities along Vancouver Island's west coast.


Gérard Duquet: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the interest the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has in subsidies to transportation services on Vancouver Island.
Last November 30th, as can be seen on page 10,004 of Hansard, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni asked the hon. Minister of Transport the same question concerning subsidies to coastal ship services in Canada, with particular reference to the service on the west coast of Vancouver Island.
In his reply, the Minister of Transport explained that it might be possible to remedy the situation described by the hon. member through an extension of the service, if the hon. member's description of the situation was accurate.
However, the minister pointed out that the decision rested entirely with the CTC.
In answer to a second question asked by the hon. member on December 8 on the same subject, the Minister told him about the successful outcome of his intervention with the Canadian Transport Commission and about the fact that the Commission and agreed to extent the subsidies for a period of six months.
I believe discussions are now in progress between the Transport Commission and the owners of the ferry service with a view to reaching a satisfactory solution in the interest of all concerned.
I trust this information will prove satisfactory to the hon. member.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.23 p.m.


Wednesday, December 15, 1971