1971-12-02

PRIVILEGE


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege of which I gave oral notice yesterday afternoon and which I have supplemented by a written notice today. My question of privilege deals with the conduct of hon. members yesterday in committee of the whole, contrary to the provisions of Standing Order 12(2) which was read at the time, which I am sure Your Honour knows by heart and which I suggest some hon. members should learn by heart. Standing Order 12(2) provides:
When Mr. Speaker is putting a question, no member shall enter, walk out of or across the House, or make any noise or disturbance.
By STanding Order 55(1) that provision, of course, is made applicable to the conduct of hon. members in Committee of the Whole House.
There have been some varying interpretations of that rule, but I have been here-some would say too long- almost 14 years and as I have seen that rule interpreted it has been one of the rules most scrupulously respected both by the Chair and by hon. members. In other words, there can be no movement into or out of the House or the committee from the time Mr. Speaker or the Chairman puts the question. If that were not the case there would only be anarchy, particularly when you have a situation with a majority on one side of the House and groups constituting a minority on the other side. If there were not a fixed time at which the votes can be taken on all those important issues that effect this country, chaos would descend upon this House.
I shall not attempt to argue the rule, Mr. Speaker; it is there and, as I say, has been applied without any qualification. It was breached yesterday and breached to a substantial degree. 1 have been informed that there were some eight or nine hon. members-eight Liberal members specifically-on the other side of the House who entered the committee contrary to the provisions of the Standing Order.
It has also been said that there may have been a member enter on this side.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: It has been said that there may have been a breach of the rules in other respects on this side of the House. But I submit, Mr. Speaker, that when there has been an injustice, an inequity, suffered it is logical for members to protest. It may well be that in the heat of the debate, and in light of the circumstances that existed yesterday, their protest was not as tempered as might have been desirable. In the grey light of day following the 24725-9)
events of yesterday, it is easy to say that we wish we had not done what we did, but the extreme provocation offered hon. members on this side of the House would, in my humble opinion, have justified an even greater degree of protest than what took place yesterday.
We have been discussing a difficult and lengthy bill and have not had the benefit of the presence of the minister in the committee to answer questions. Yesterday we had a situation where the government saw fit to impose closure. That is their right, of course, and since we will be debating this later I shall not refer to it now. Following upon that the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) called the attention of the government House leader to what he felt was a fairly firm undertaking regarding the establishment and continuation of committee meetings while the tax bill was being considered in Committee of the whole. A little later when, pursuant to our right, we called for a vote in the committee there was an unruly and disorderly situation because a number of government members entered the committee and were present for and took part in the vote. I know of at least one on the other side who, having entered, did not vote-there may have been others who acted likewise-and I give him credit for that.
In any event, no matter what may have taken place on this side of the House the situation cannot be condoned that we witnessed in this chamber yesterday afternoon as a result of government members entering the committee and trying to participate in the vote. A government that has 150 members and is caught short with only 30 members in the House right after having imposed closure has no right under those conditions-indeed, it has no right under any conditions-to take an action that is nothing short of scandalous.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: I am not going to move a motion, Mr. Speaker, but I would have been derelict in my duty, with the limited responsibilities that I bear, if I had not brought this matter to the attention of the Chair and of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member kindly resume his seat. The hon. member for Peace River did give the Chair notice of the question of privilege that he intended to bring to the attention of the House at this time and, as he might suspect, I have given the whole matter very serious consideration in the meantime. This is a situation that has worried me a great deal. Obviously-I should not say "obviously" because the word may be too strong-apparently there were irregularities in the voting yesterday. I would want, with charity to hope that none of these irregularities were committed without malice aforethought.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Deliberately.

Conduct of Members in Committee


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps hon. members are not as charitable as I am.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Certainly I think we must take into account the fact that the hon. member for Peace River has brought this situation to the attention of the House and the Chair. It is always a very touchy and delicate situation when the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole-a position I occupied for a few years so I know how difficult it is when the question has to be put by the Chair-has to try to convince hon. members who were behind the curtains or in the lobby or who perhaps came down from their offices that they ought not to come into the chamber, that they have no right to enter and should not stand or move about the chamber during a vote.
This principle, as the hon. member for Peace River emphasized very well, has been recognized for a long time. I would therefore hope that the incident which took place yesterday and which we all deplore will remind us that we should not forget the provisions of the Standing order when the House is in Committee of the Whole.
The hon. member for Richelieu is rising on a question of privilege.


Mr. Florian Cote (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I know that the question of privilege of the hon. member for Peace River is not debatable, but I cannot ignore certain assertions. In fact, I have counted-I declare this on my oath of office-six members who entered from the other side of the House.


Mr. Nowlan:: You are lying.


Mr. McGrath:: That's a lie.


Some hon. Members:: Liar.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member has a question of privilege, he should have given notice of it to the Chair, as did the hon. member for Peace River. It is as simple as that.


James Aloysius McGrath: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think it is incumbent upon the hon. member who just raised the question of privilege to name the hon. members on this side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Name them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Get up, you liar.


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please. The hon. member thought he had a question of privilege. I suggested to him that he did not. He is welcome to so think, but I
IMr. Lambert (Edmonton West).]
really do not think he has a question of privilege. That is the ruling I made a moment ago.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I rise on the question of privilege. I was in the House yesterday when the events that have been described happened. There was one member who came in at a certain stage, the member in front of me, the hon. member for-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Red Deer.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson). He came in and left. He did not participate in the vote. He entered the chamber when the vote was being called on the other side. I ask the hon. member to name the six members who came in while this was happening. If he does not do this, Mr. Speaker, we on this side who did vote all have a point of privilege that has to be clarified.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I really do not think the hon. member who raised this question of privilege had any justification for doing so. The matter was raised by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). There was no motion proposed. Obviously his intention was to bring to the attention of the Chair and the House the difficulties with which we were faced yesterday. He has done so and I really do not think there is any further action that should be taken by the Chair at this point.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Seventh report of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates-Mr. Fernand-E. Leblanc (Laurier).

[Stage Direction]
Tenth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs-Mr. Paul-M. Gervais (Sherbrooke).
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 75c I should like to move a motion in the following terms, seconded by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald).
December 2, 1971


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: You are the father; it is your illegitimate child.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I assure you, Mr. Speaker, there was considerable competition for the privilege of seconding this motion, but finally I decided I would give the honour to the Minister of National Defence. I move, seconded by the minister:
That, in relation to 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, four sitting days shall be allotted to the further consideration in Committee of the Whole stage of the said bill:
That, on the fourth of the said days, at fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business in such sitting, any proceeding before the committee shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of the Committee of the Whole stage to the said bill, shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in beginning my short comments on this motion I should like to begin by saying that the subject matter of the bill has been in the public domain for quite a long time. The subject matter has been extensively discussed in Canada over a long period of time. The right, hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), when he was Prime Minister of this country, established the Carter Commission to inquire into and investigate the taxation system in Canada and that commission spent a period of five years hearing representations from all groups in the community. The report was not completed during the right hon. gentleman's period of leadership but it was presented to the former government. Subsequently, in November, 1969, a white paper was presented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). The white paper was examined by a committee in this House and by a committee in the other place. I believe the work of the standing committee of the House of Commons on this white paper, aided by expert staff, was outstanding. Their report was presented to the House and many of the recommendations were incorporated into the present bill. So it is not correct to suggest that the subject matter of the bill was suddenly plucked out of the air and presented to this House without much advance consideration in the public domain.
The second point I want to make is that the tax bill itself was unveiled to the House of Commons last June and the main points of the tax bill were elaborated in the budget speech of the Minister of Finance and in that six-day debate many of the principles of the amending bill were discussed. In addition, the bill itself was put before the House of Commons and in order to give the chamber and the country an opportunity to consider the bill. The House was adjourned for a period of two months and was recalled in September for the principal purpose of examining the hill that is now under discussion.
I think it is clear to hon. members that in the House itself the bill has had extensive discussion. Hon. members may argue that it should have more discussion, and there may be differences of opinion on that point, but nobody can honestly argue that the bill has not had a very extensive exposure in the House of Commons. There were 12
Business of the House
days of debate on second reading of the bill, quite a long time but not excessive in terms of the importance and complexity of the bill, and yesterday we completed the 27th day of consideration in the Committee of the Whole House. So we have now had almost 40 days, almost eight solid weeks of parliamentary time, devoted to the consideration of the bill now before the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Nonsense!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: How many more amendments? How many more pounds?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Hon. members opposite will have an opportunity to put their case and I will give them a full hearing. I would like the same privilege from hon. members opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Crouse:: You do not know the meaning of your own words.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Those who are objecting to what they describe as a muzzling of Parliament seem ready to muzzle me as I am attempting to lay the case before the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I want to mention also that before we began consideration of the bill in committee and as the bill was being examined in committee the House leaders of all parties, joined by the hon. member for Edmonton West, met very frequently to discuss the evolution of the discussion in the House of Commons. It was because of the considerable attention given at those meetings to the bill that we were able, in Committee of the Whole, to proceed in an orderly way to move from one major subject area of the bill to another. At the beginning I had proposed a different procedure, but I accepted what I thought was a better procedure suggested at the House leaders' meetings. We completed just a few days ago, in accordance with the arrangements reached, consideration of every major subject area that had been designated at those meetings as worthy of discussion. We completed that process several days ago. It is true that we did not carry all the sections related to those subject areas, but we did discuss the issues involved.
We have attempted to maintain a flexible attitude toward the bill. We have listened to the representations made in the country and in the committee with respect, for example, to the taxation of co-operatives and credit unions. I am happy to state that when we go into the committee we will be moving a series of major amendments-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -which will assist the situation for the co-operatives and credit unions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: You finally saw the light.


Mr. Paproski:: You won't have to resign, then.

December 2, 1971
Business of the House


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The full details of these amendments will be disclosed in the committee, but let me say that the concept of capital employed will be removed and it will be replaced-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -by a withholding tax system that will be fully satisfactory to the co-operatives. A similar amendment will be made with respect to the credit unions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I see you rising to your feet. I just have one more sentence, if I may finish.


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


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: It sure has.


Mr. Stanfield:: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister said he had one more sentence. He did have heavy going for a while and perhaps he might be allowed to finish.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave of the House to finish?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am in the hands of the House. I intended to conclude with a ringing call to the House to reach a decision on this bill, but I do want to say one simple thing. In my opinion, in light of the background of the discussion that has taken place on this bill and the great amount of time in committee and on second reading, it is now appropriate for the government to take its responsibility to permit the House to take its responsibility in reaching a decision on the bill. To do otherwise, it seems to me, is to lend credence to the point of view so frequently stated in Canada today that the House of Commons is an anachronistic institution and is incapable of acting effectively and decisively on the major problems facing the country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Before calling on the Leader of the Opposition I think I should put the motion, now that the minister has completed his remarks. Mr. MacEachen, seconded by Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) moves:
That, in relation to 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, four sitting days shall be allotted to the further consideration in Committee of the Whole stage of the said bill;
That, on the fourth of the said days, at fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business in such sitting, any proceeding before the committee shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of the Committee of the Whole stage to the said bill, shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I agreed to the government House leader continuing for a minute or two because I wanted to see if he could make a case for what he is proposing to do, since he had not made it up to that time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: This is the most complex bill ever to appear in this Parliament. I say that with great confidence, Mr. Speaker. It is some 707 pages in length. The minister spoke of it having been introduced last spring, when he was referring to the lengthy consideration that it has had. The bill 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. I am not suggesting that the government House leader deliberately misled the House, but I am saying that apparently he is not fully aware of when in fact the bill was distributed, and he has perhaps unintentionally vastly exaggerated the length of time that members have had to study and consider the bill.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: And the public.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is point No. 1, Mr. Speaker. It is not merely that the government House leader does not know what is in the bill but obviously he does not know how long it has been available to members of this House to consider.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is intricate legislation and it affects everybody in the country. He says that the subject matter has been discussed for months and indeed years. Not the subject matter of this bill, Mr. Speaker. Tax experts whom I know spent the whole summer doing nothing else but trying to understand this bill and then came to the conclusion that they could not understand it. There are a few people who claim to understand this bill but they are-


Mr. Davis:: Where did they get it?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Just one minute, Mr. Speaker. I am not talking about when the bill was printed; I am talking about when the bill was distributed. The bill was not distributed to members of this House until the House reconvened. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) can smile all he likes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: That is a smirk!


An hon. Member:: It is a petulant smirk!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: There is only one thing that is clear. If this bill is passed in its present form, anyone engaged in any kind of active life in this country will need a tax expert at his elbow all the time.
Not only is the bill 707 pages in length, Mr. Speaker, but 97 amendments were introduced on October 22, 28 amendments were introduced on October 29, eight amendments were introduced on November 16, and some of those were amendments to previous amendments. Now we are getting more and more amendments and we will have many more before many months have passed.
December 2, 1971

Sir, if the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) had issued the Ten Commandments one tablet of stone might have been enough to get him through the short form title but he would have needed to use all of the Laurentian mountains to get through the bill and he would have needed the Rocky mountains to accommodate the amendments.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, nobody really knows whether this bill is relevant to conditions that have changed substantially since it was introduced last spring. The provinces have requested postponement of the implementation of the bill. We have no idea what arrangements are going to be worked out with the provinces in the fields of estate tax and succession duties. We do not know what kind of tax jungle is going to arise out of the stubborn persistance of the government in bulling ahead. Yet the government is insisting on lowering the guillotine on discussions of a bill that nobody on that side of the House understands.
I want to emphasize in the few minutes I have that we have not taken a position of intransigence on this tax bill.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no? .


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On the contrary, we proposed a course of action that we felt was both sensible and honourable. Unlike the parliamentary secretary, Mr. Speaker, we felt some obligation to understand it before passing it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We proposed a course of action that we thought was both honourable and sensible and we had high hopes at one point that the government might be prepared to accept that course. We had such high hopes because earlier in this session, in relation to another difficult although much less complex piece of legislation, the government did accept in principle the same kind of procedure when an impasse seemed to have been reached. Negotiations at that time were not all take and no give on our part. Those negotiations were subsequently frustrated; there are various interpretations of the reasons for that frustration but I am not going to go into that in the few minutes available to me. What is significant is that the government showed for a brief moment during that episode one of its rare demonstrations of faith in the parliamentary system.
In making our proposal in relation to the tax bill we felt there was at least a recent precedent that the government, however fleetingly, was prepared to treat this House as it should be treated, as a human instrument whereby men of good will can fulfil the needs of the country as much as is humanly possible by consensus.
I congratulate the government House leader for his common sense and his courage in setting that precedent on that occasion. But I cannot congratulate him today. I see no courage in his action on this occasion with regard to this bill and I see that common sense has been sacrificed altogether. I have to ask myself why the government rejects today what was acceptable in principle a few short weeks ago. There can be only one answer-to save the
Business of the House
political face of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: What a face!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The Prime Minister and the other members of his cabinet know that the rosy bloom of this government has faded and they have felt the sting of having to withdraw unacceptable legislation such as the shoddy attempt to muzzle the Auditor General.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: They have felt the tide of popular support run out on them on any number of unrealistic and half-baked brainstorms. They do not like it because it is bad for their image.


An hon. Member:: What image?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: But the people of Canada and Parliament must learn-


An hon. Member:: Just fuddling around.


An hon. Member:: It is a gay image they have.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The attitude of the government is that people must be shown that this government knows best. Give the people a show of strength-that always goes over well. Put Parliament in its place. Show that bunch of nobodies on this side of the House that this place is merely supposed to be a glorified rubber stamp for legislation produced by this brain trust or policies produced by this government. Make the opposition shut up.
There is no question here, Sir, of the government's right to govern. There is no question here of the opposition stonewalling a government measure. There is no question of any real need for the government to take the course it is proposing and which the government House leader has just launched the government upon. What we have here is a political manoeuvre, an ego trip with the government supporters on the other side of the House foisting on the country a bill they do not understand just to try to save the face of the government.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, at this stage I wish to indicate three reasons for voting against the motion that has been presented by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen). May I state the three reasons in capsule form and then come back to each of them.
In the first place, I think that the use of closure is the wrong way to deal with legislation, that there are better ways. In the second place, it is a fact of history that every time a form of closure has been used in this House it has produced ill will, chaos and confusion, and has resulted in a period of time during which nothing constructive or effective is done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: In the third place, Mr. Speaker, I contend that a tax bill, and certainly

December 2, 1971
Business of the House
a tax bill as voluminous as this one and as confusing to the people of Canada as this one, is too important a piece of legislation to be passed under closure.


An hon. Member:: It is too important to pass, eh?


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I come back to the first of my three points. I firmly believe that there are times when we must allocate the time of this House, organize our business and get on with the job that is before us. But I suggest, Sir, that we have proven over the years that this can be done by understanding and by agreement. I suggest that even with respect to this important bill, contentious though it is, there have been many unanimous agreements among the House leaders. We have determined the amount of time that should be spent on certain subject areas. These agreements have been announced in a low key to the House and have been accepted. I believe it would have been far better to continue in that way and to achieve an end to this debate by agreement and by understanding instead of by the use of the big stick unilaterally wielded by the government. I suggest that the announcement the President of the Privy Council made in the course of his remarks proves my point. We in this party welcome enthusiastically the announcement he made to the effect that the government will make amendments improving the situation with respect to credit unions and co-operatives. How has that come about?


Mr. Alexander:: That is the question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It has come about because of free debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: It has come about because of free debate in which hon. members in all parties in the House took part. I give credit to the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Whelan), to the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) and to the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai), as well as to others on the government side of the House who took part in that debate. As a result of that debate-since there was no time limit we could make our points and drive them home-the government has seen the light and the welcome announcement was made by the minister today. He is pointing to himself. He wants credit for what he did as well, and I give it to him.


An hon. Member:: He needs it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It was part of the deal.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The point is that when debate is free, that kind of thing can happen. I suggest that from now until a quarter to six on Wednesday the debate in the Committee of the Whole stage will not be free. We will just be riding out the time. There will be no yielding by the government on any other points. Many amendments that opposition members might wish to make will never be made because there are 707 pages to the bill and many sections and subsections have not been discussed and will not be reached. Yet at 5.45 p.m. next Wednesday the 100 or so amendments moved by the Minister of National Revenue and many sections which have

not even been debated will have to be voted on one by one. That is not free debate. That is not dealing with legislation in the proper way. I reject it completely.
I insist that the opposition party House leaders have the right to say that we have given the government a good run of co-operation. Here I give credit to the President of the Privy Council as well. He has been a good government House leader in the sense that he has been very co-operative. We have done well during the last two or three years. I do not know why he has to reverse that process and use the big stick with respect to this piece of legislation. That is my first point, Mr. Speaker. This is the wrong way to do it. There is a better way, and it has worked time and time again. I wish that this House would stick with the better way.
The second point I announced when I first started was that it is a matter of historical fact that every time we get into one of these situations in which closure is imposed, ill will develops. We have already seen it in the House yesterday and today. The danger is that this sort of thing will continue. When it does, we do not see Parliament at its best. I do not mind confrontation. I like it. I do not mind the cut and thrust of debate. I like it; I like debate to go back and forth. But when we get to the stage of chaos, furore and good will, that just is not Parliament.


An hon. Member:: Shouldn't that be ill will?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, that should read as ill will. So far as what will happen between now and a quarter to six on Wednesday is concerned, why, we might as well take the vote now because the kind of Parliament we are used to within our experience will not be operating. Even so, even though this has begun to happen after it was announced that closure would be put into effect, even though it has already started in this case, I stand here as a member of the opposition and plead that we not do that and that we not operate in that way. We have only so much time left for the tax bill. Let us spend that time on the bill. Let us deal with as many sections as we can. Let us not have too many sideshows or too many diversions. Let us not lose any of the time it is proposed to allot to us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: The third thing I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, as I indicated at the beginning, is this. Speaking as one who has never been willing to support closure, I think there is a particularly strong case against closure with respect to this bill. Nothing so affects all the people in the country as a tax bill. Everybody has to pay taxes one way or another, directly or indirectly. This bill has about it many misunderstandings. There is much confusion about it. In the course of the next year or so after this bill is put into effect there is bound to be a good deal of feeling against its provisions. If the Canadian people remember when they fill out their income tax forms and pay their taxes that this bill was imposed upon them under closure, they will feel even more bitter about it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
December 2, 1971


Stanley Howard Knowles: I submit, Mr. Speaker, that since the opposition parties in this House represent, according to the vote of 1968, more than 50 per cent of the people in this country, more people than the members on the other side of the House represent, our desire that this bill be dealt with by free debate rather than under closure is a valid point. As a House leader I would be glad to continue taking part in discussions to try to achieve some understanding, some way, to bring the tax debate to an end. I submit that this is the wrong way, that it produces ill will and that it is unfair to foist upon the people of Canada, under closure, a tax bill of this magnitude. Therefore, Sir, I hope the House will vote against the motion that is now before it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the arguments brought forward by the government leader in support of his motion include three main points which I should like to analyze very objectively.
First of all, he referred to the white paper which was produced and which, for many months, has been available for public perusal. The public was in a position to make representations to enable the government to make changes called for by the organizations which were prepared to submit relevant briefs.
I readily recognize that the hon. minister is right in saying that the public had the opportunity to make an exhaustive study of the legislation. I would however point out to him that preliminary studies for preparation of Bill C-259 involved very lengthy work sessions for department officials over several years. And today the members who have been acquainted with this omnibus bill for only a few months are being asked to pass it in all haste.
I recognize that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) moved a motion in this connection on June 18th. But the bill itself was handed over to the members only in early September; it contains provisions and amendments of great importance to various organizations; representations are being made to us almost daily since the opening of the debate, and we must make sure that the individuals and organisations that are hardest hit will not be taxed unfairly.
The Croll report on poverty mentions that 60 per cent of federal taxes are paid by low wage earners. We must take the necessary steps to study tax reform in order to guarantee some categories of people the possibility of getting a more equitable treatment.
At the second reading stage, Creditistes were wrongly accused of filibustering a little when the House made the detailed study of sections 135, 136 and 137 of the bill regarding co-operatives and caisses populaires. But our only intention then was to make suggestions to the government, to propose ways of improving the tax system, while being very careful not to destroy the co-operative movement which served Canadians so well and is still able to do so.
The hon. minister informed us today that amendments would be brought forward with regard to capital employed.
Business of the House
This is what we suggested in order to speed up the debate, namely that the proposed concept of capital used which would serve as the main basis for computing the cooperative corporations tax, be simply removed. If the Minister would introduce an amendment of such a nature in order to remove this concept, there would no longer be any discussion, and the section would be passed very quickly I do not see any reason why it was felt necessary to invoke Standing Order 75C to limit the debates, because as soon as the government moves these amende-ments that meet with the wishes of the caisses populaires, the co-operative corporations, the credit unions as well as our own, he can be assured of the co-operation of all the hon. members of this House.
Mr. Speaker, we are not here to make deals. I find it extremely unpleasant to see that when we want to speed up business, we try to make offers and counter-offers. I really do not like this business about making conditional concessions. Let us be honest with one another. Surely we can come to an agreement without having to sound as if we were making a deal at the taxpayers' expense. Let there be honest, concrete suggestions made, let valid amendments be proposed, and the government can be assured of our co-operation. I object to the false information handed out to the public to the effect that whenever we take a stand, we do so in order to filibuster. I would also like the press to be more objective so that the public might be better informed of what goes on in this House.
On behalf of my colleagues I oppose this motion aimed at limiting debate on Bill C-259 to four days. Next Wednesday, after these four days, at a quarter to six, it will no longer be possible to propose amendments nor to continue the debate. That amounts to gagging the House. No matter whether you agree or not, the majority decides.
Mr. Speaker, it is the first time that such action has been taken since I came to the House. I sincerely deplore that. Yesterday I thought there was still some possibility that this motion would not be introduced today. I still had some hope. Even today, at noon, I told a journalist who had asked me about it that I hoped that the debate would not get even more complicated by such a motion. But, having taken this decision, the government will also have to bear the consequences. I will have to vote against that measure, but let it be clear that I do not vote against the amendments that will be proposed in order to improve the situation of co-operatives and caisses populaires.
Furthermore, we had asked that construction and forest workers as well as of mechanics and railwaymen be taken into consideration so that their travelling expenses be deductible under the bill, thus affording them a measure of protection.
I regret very much, Mr. Speaker, that the front benches are so irresponsible because when we try to bring forth arguments likely to justify our position, they laugh and talk in order to confuse the speaker. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell them that I am not thrown off the track that easily. I know where I am going I am sure of the positions I have to take and I do so honestly.
Finally, I must say that despite the government's attitude, we will co-operate just the same so as to make the best possible use of such a situation. Life must go on. Let us hope that we shall continue just the same to under-

December 2, 1971
Business of the House
stand one another and to work efficiently in the best interests of our fellow citizens.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is essential for the country and for taxpayers generally, and particularly for those hundreds of thousands of taxpayers who will be taken off the tax rolls if this bill passes-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: -that the present uncertainty concerning the fate of the tax reform bill be brought to an end as soon as possible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: I think all members of the House are aware that business decisions are pending throughout Canada, awaiting passage of this bill, that capital investment is being delayed until this bill is passed, that budget formulations are being made on the assumption that this bill will pass, that the accounting systems of most businesses, particularly those whose fiscal years have already begun and will end in the period covered by the bill, are being adversely affected by the failure of Parliament to come to grips with the situation.
I need not cite any greater authority on uncertainty than the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). Last February he was complaining in a speech that the government's alleged failure to announce decisions on tax reform was having an unsettling effect on the economy. This is what he said:
It is this aspect of uncertainty about our economy that tax legislation could go a long way to clearing up.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: This bill has been studied and digested more thoroughly than any other piece of legislation which has come before this Parliament or any other Parliament I have known. It has been suggested from the other side that it should be withdrawn.


Gerald William Baldwin: No.


John Napier Turner: What chaos that would produce, with business not knowing whether to rely on the present taxation law or to rely on a future taxation law, having already prepared itself to operate on the basis of a future taxation law.
The Leader of the Official Opposition and his House leader, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), have put to the House and the government the proposition that the tax bill be split. How ought it to be split, Mr. Speaker? Technically it would be a nightmare to do so.


Mr. Bell:: It already is a nightmare.


John Napier Turner: Parliament and the Committee of the Whole have had a very full debate to this date consisting of 37 days, 12 days on second reading and 25 in Committee of the Whole.
Might I clarify a statement made by the Leader of the Opposition. To my knowledge and from advice I have received I can tell the House that the bill was distributed to the House by the distribution office on July 12.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gerald William Baldwin: That was the version in Chinese.


An hon. Member:: Another of those cabinet leaks.


John Napier Turner: The hon. member would not know that because he was on vacation. The bill has been discussed in Committee of the Whole on the basis of an interparty agreement among the House leaders. All of its major aspects have been debated, such as personal exemptions, the capital gains tax, corporate income, the way the legislation affects the farming community, the problem of the basic herd and so on.


Gerald William Baldwin: We have a basic herd on the other side of the House.


John Napier Turner: All of these major aspects of the bill have been thoroughly canvassed on second reading and debated in Committee of the Whole. Surely the time has now come, after almost two months of debate in this House, for Parliament to express itself on the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: After all, democracy means debate-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: -but democracy also means the taking of decisions after debate. No member of the House would pretend that this bill is a perfect instrument.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister has only ten minutes in which to make his speech and it has become very difficult for any member of the House, including the Chair, to follow what the minister is saying.


John Napier Turner: This parliament, Mr. Speaker, must pronounce itself on the bill. The people will also decide. The government, of course, will in due course be accountable to the people. But what the members on this side cannot accept is accountability for the uncertainty that the opposition is attempting to thrust upon this Parliament. Our responsibility is to try to persuade Parliament to bring this uncertainty to a close.
I want to issue a challenge to the opposition. I want the opposition to take a position on this bill and on some of the individual clauses of the bill. Let them vote against those clauses they do not like, but let them allow the bill to come to a vote so that the positions of both sides of the House be made clear.
Despite the rhetoric used by members on the other side of the House, this motion is not brought under Standing Order 33 or under the closure procedure. This motion falls under the rules providing for the allocation of time, Standing Orders 75a, 75b and 75c.
(Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse).l
December 2, 1971


Gerald William Baldwin: It is closure.


John Napier Turner: The government House leader tried to get an allocation of time under rule 75a by agreement among all parties in the House. He was unable to get any agreement whatsoever for any period of time. The government House leader then proceeded under rule 75b hoping that he could get what the rule calls a qualified agreement to allot time, but he was not even able to get from the opposition a qualified agreement to allot time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: It is still closure.


John Napier Turner: The government House leader, as contemplated under this time allotment rule, and as he was entitled to do, then moved under rule 75c, which is the procedure whereby if-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again I must call for order. There is absolutely no possibility for the Chair to hear anything that is being said either by the hon. member who has the floor-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that they should allow the Speaker to speak even if they will not allow the member who has the floor to speak. I would bring to the attention of hon. members that if we are going to have a debate we should give an opportunity to the member who is recognized to make his speech. This would be a rather dull place if there were absolute silence all the time; it is good for debate that hon. members should have the chance to express their views in one way or another. But, as I say, the hon. member who has the floor should be given a chance to be heard.


John Napier Turner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Having failed to persuade the opposition House leaders to agree to an allotment of time under rule 75a, and having again tried to get a qualified agreement under rule 75b, the government House leader was entitled under the same set of rules to move for an allotment of time under 75c.
The proposition is a simple one, Mr. Speaker. After full and fair debate Parliament must be given the opportunity, must take the responsibility, of reaching a decision on this bill so that Members of Parliament can be accountable to the Canadian people for the bill. That is the purpose of this motion.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I hope my time will not be reduced by the length of the unseemly applause that I was given as I rose to speak. I was very much impressed by the remarks of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: He said that there was no reason to object to what is being done. He contended that the vast mix-up of taxation laws under this bill that affect other fields of endeavour has been thoroughly digested. In his opinion there was no reason for further discussion of them. My record shows that of the 707 pages in the bill 24725-101
Business of the House
only 190 have been discussed. I suggest that when the minister speaks of digestion he could not have had the government in mind. In the past couple of weeks there have been 133 amendments moved, which indicates that the government found that its digestive apparatus was not working very well. It regurgitated what it had produced and which it thought it had well digested.
Hon. gentlemen opposite who spoke about democracy and what it means gave an amazing performance. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) knows what democracy means.


Mr. Trudeau:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: He is the only one who applauds it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: He knows what democracy is because he said on one occasion that his favourite politician was a gentleman from Florence-Machiavelli. Machiavelli was noted for his-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He is not from Florence.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not want to miss these words of wisdom.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is "Mac". It is a Scottish name.


John George Diefenbaker: Machiavelli was known for his craftiness. He was known for his ability to pretend. He was known because he was often misinterpreted, frequently misinformed, but never mistaken. I do not know how far one is supposed to carry this analogy. Mr. Speaker, they are not even through with the amendments. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) said in effect, "We have a few more".


Robert Lorne Stanfield: They are just starting.


John George Diefenbaker: They had a lot of difficulty digesting what taxes they were going to apply to co-operatives and credit unions across Canada. Then they back down.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: You said you were going to stand. You still have more than 140 amendments that have not been considered. In addition there are some further amendments being brought forward.


An hon. Member:: Straighten him out, Bob.


John George Diefenbaker: The government are in the position of having a mathematical majority and, therefore, regardless of whether Parliament is raped or not, intends to cut off discussion. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) mentioned 75c. That thing was brought in by closure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I sat on this side of the House in 1956. The Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) laughs. At that time he was engaged in other activities of a leftist nature.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

December 2, 1971
Business of the House


John George Diefenbaker: In 1956 I saw the ministers ridicule the opposition. I saw the members supporting the government treat us derisively and contemptuously as they are doing today. Ridicule was heaped on the opposition for daring to say the government had not permitted discussion. Today we are dealing with a matter involving personal income, capital gains, taxing of corporations and shareholders, taxing of mining and petroleum industries, business and property income, international income and taxation of farmers. The government does not know where it is going. Otherwise, you would not have produced all these amendments. You do not want discussion. You have a majority in Parliament and you can trample on Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: I say to the Prime Minister, you can trample on Parliament, but today you only have 40 per cent of the people of Canada who believe in you.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Let me tell you this, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister points. He usually thumbs.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the right hon. member. Perhaps I should not interrupt him, but I am wondering whether he has been addressing his opposition more than the Chair. He has been using the pronoun "you". I do not know whether that is strictly rhetorical. Perhaps he might address the Chair rather than members on the opposite side of the House.


John George Diefenbaker: This House can be turned into an institution of fuddy-duddies. As far as I am concerned, it is not going to be.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I say to the Prime Minister that this is proper debating because I necessarily say it through Your Honour to him. I do not direct it to him. There are only ten minutes available.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Is it because of the fear of argument that they hoot across the way? I remember the immortal words of the Prime Minister in 1968. He said, "We are your masters". Oh, yes.


An hon. Member:: That was in 1963.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member is so far behind that he does not realize we were defeated in the House in 1963.


An hon. Member:: November, 1962.


John George Diefenbaker: Constitutionally, we resigned. However, when the Pearson government was defeated in 1968 it stayed on.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Miller Bell: Just like Joey.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister has treated this institution with the most supreme contempt that I have ever seen shown to the Parliament of Canada in all my life.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Those who sit behind the Prime Minister applaud. They hear their master's voice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: The degree of the decibels indicates that I have gotten under their hides, if I may use that expression. This is a serious occasion for Parliament. It is being treated as the pawn of the Prime Minister. Over and over again he has left the House when criticized. Only a few days ago he walked out of a press debate in Halifax. He said, "Let's go home." The Prime Minister's place is to take part in the major debates in Parliament. In the entire period he has been in office he has not spoken more than two or three times.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Five.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister is correcting me. He says "five". 1 think there is a little multiplication there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: How is Parliament being treated? This is a bill that very few people can understand. There are sections that are completely incomprehensible. They might as well be in Sanskrit. Nobody can understand them. The government cannot. Instead of having a minister pilot the bill, the government has a parliamentary secretary doing so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I hope Your Honour is watching the time. This type of interruption reduces one's opportunity to speak. That is the reason it is done. It is an irresponsible course. The parliamentary secretary has no responsibility. He cannot speak for the government. If he could, the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) would have been speaking for the government the other day when he spoke of the dastardly mess the economy of Canada is in because of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Parliamentary secretaries, however able they may be, cannot pilot bills before Parliament. That is a rule that has been upheld all through the years. It is something which has been swept aside by this government. The Prime Minister once before had a moment of forgetfulness. He forgot his age. That was selective forgetfulness, but the other day he had so many parliamentary secretaries that he forgot he only had authority for 27 and appointed 28. With great pride he brought them before the
December 2, 1971

House and three hours later said that the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson) was supernumerary and was out. One hundred and ten members of the 150 on the Liberal side of the House have various jobs and some of them are filled with an abiding interest. They feel that if they make it clear that they hear the master's voice, ultimately they will hear the master's voice say, "Follow me".


Mr. Woolliams:: Where the hell were they yesterday?


John George Diefenbaker: This is the ultimate rape of Parliament by a group of members who do not represent the majority of the people of Canada. Their support has fallen away in recent weeks to such an extent that whenever the election comes that will be the end of them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Smallwood.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) made a biblical reference earlier in his speech.


An hon. Member:: To you.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I was about to say, Sir, that if the Leader of the Opposition can make a biblical reference perhaps I might be permitted to say that if God had had to choose someone to holler the Ten Commandments from Mount Sinai he would have picked the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants. If he had had the help of the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings he would have made even the Ten Commandments sound like a first degree murder indictment.
The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) knows of the high regard I have for him. I would hope he would not class me among any fuddy-duddies in this House. He also made an analogy involving Machiavelli.	He talked about the rare talents of Machiavelli which he said included craft, various other skills, and a certain amount of deviousness. Indeed, it might be that for a moment I had the impression he was talking about himself. Under these circumstances he will not regard that as an insult because in fact he will know too, as a great student of history, that at long last Machiavelli is being in a sense restored to a position of prominence in the eyes of many people, including historians, and there is still hope that the hon. member may yet achieve a rehabilitated position himself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: May I say I sympathize profoundly with him on one point. He referred to the backbenchers of this party and the way in which there is an immediate and almost uniform response on every occasion to what he described as a master's voice. We can understand the difficulty on the other side because the voice tends to come from two places almost at the same time and is often contradictory.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Business of the House


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that time is short. I am aware also that my right hon. friend and I enjoy this kind of thing.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Quote your Prime Minister and tell us about the bums and idiots.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister of Transport has the floor.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, once again I am so grateful to the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert and may I quote him in response to the somewhat offensive remarks from the opposition side by saying when I am on the trail of elephants I am not detracted by rabbit tracks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: In the limited time, if hon. members-


An hon. Member:: You are surrounded by seals.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition spoke in his usual way and perhaps his natural way- quite modestly. I suppose it could be said he has a great deal to be modest about. But I want to say to him it is a fact that for whatever reason the documents concerned were not delivered into the hands of some opposition members they were in fact available from July 12. If the conclusion to be drawn from this is that the Tory party does not have a single friend among the tax experts in Canada, I can very well understand that. May I also say on a more serious note that despite comments to the contrary-


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member had to get it by a leak.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The right hon. member should know that when we do that we do not tear the cover off the book.
I would agree, Mr. Speaker, with the House leader for the New Democratic Party. As is often the case he had, in my opinion, the most reasoned and most sensible comments to make in this debate. It is of no consequence on either side that I do not happen to agree with them in a basic way, but I do admire the fair and sensible way in which he put them forward and decided to dwell on the issues and not on extraneous matter. Because I would dearly love to have followed his example-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: He doesn't want to get experience.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: If hon. members want to holler I can give them a bigger holler than almost anybody else.
In the few moments remaining I should like to make one or two serious comments and direct them to the issues which have been raised in the usual statesmanlike manner by the leader of the House party of the New Democratic Party.

December 2, 1971
Business of the House


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: This gentleman says-my apology.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Perhaps the wish was father to the thought. On the points that he made, may I say very briefly that it is, of course the wish of all of us that it could have been possible for us to achieve the kind of unanimity that would have produced not only a bill with which we could all agree but, most important, a bill that could be introduced and enacted quickly, thus putting an end to the indecision. This was not possible for the House leader to do, and I think it is a terribly important point. Incidentally, it has been said that we have dealt with only 191 pages of the bill. I say to the right hon. gentleman with all due deference, and I do not mean it unkindly, that this is something of a representation in that the most of the key points in the bill are in those 191 pages.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Nonsense!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Let us assume that the rate of progress that has been made was adequate.


Mr. Forrestall:: What are the 500 pages left for?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I will tell you what they are for, to hold up this bill for another nine months-nine months of indecision.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: If it took this House three months to study 191 pages, it is surely logical to assume that, given the snail's pace of progress on some of these matters, we would be here for another nine months, and that is too long to wait in indecision in this country on such an important measure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Joey Smallwood knows how to hold things up.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure who has the floor. I ask hon. members to give the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) a chance to complete his remarks. He has just about one minute left.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I may say that it would be folly for the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) to request any foghorns in his riding in the future because I know he will not need them.
However, in the moment remaining, may I remind the House very briefly of the exhaustive study that these measures have had from the very first day on which the right hon. gentleman appointed the Carter Commission. It is true that we could go on indefinitely on many of these matters because surely it would not be possible, on a

measure of this magnitude and complexity, to ever expect that this House would be unanimous on the total bill. At some point there would have to be disagreement. All we are asking is that the House use the normal amount of time which we think is adequate to the job.
May I remond hon. members in passing that the house of commons of the United Kingdom took six days of debate to decide on entry into the European Common Market.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I will not try to argue the point, but let me say finally that while we have responsibilities to the opposition which, quite properly, they never let us forget, I suggest that the opposition has the responsibility to the government to let it bring its program forward and to enact it into law. Finally, of course, we both have a responsibility to the people of Canada. We are satisfied to take the reaction that will result from this procedure because we are satisfied that what the people of Canada are really saying to us is to get on with the job, and that is what we are trying to do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Today, we seem to have proof as to who is expert in the House on extraneous matters. In ten minutes, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) hardly referred to the motion or the issue before the House. It would appear that he got lost in the rabbit tracks to which he referred in reply to the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). He did mention Machiavelli. I can think of no one more qualified in this House to speak about Machiavelli because the minister learned about Machiavelli from an expert, the premier of Newfoundland. The Minister of Transport would do well to direct his efforts and his attention to the mess in Newfoundland today resulting from the intransigence of the Liberal party in refusing to listen to the wishes of the people of Newfoundland.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: That is Liberal democracy for you, Mr. Speaker. Here is a party that was defeated by the people of Newfoundland and yet refuses to resign. We will have another opportunity to meet the minister on this question. We will be seeing him in Sally's Cove.
The minister spoke about closure; he spoke about the opposition's objections to this device, this guillotine on the part of the government. Indeed, the right hon. member for Prince Albert referred to the fact that, now that the device has been used, rule 75c itself was born of closure. Why was it that the government had to use closure to bring in Rule 75c? They had to use closure because 75c was a repugnant to us then as it is now. Here we have the same government that imposed closure on the House to change the rules of the House just a few years ago now taking the unprecedented step of imposing closure on a tax bill. I doubt that there is a precedent anywhere in the annals of British parliamentary history. All I can say is that the arrogance of this government is only exceeded by the contempt it has for this institution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
December 2, 1971


James Aloysius McGrath: They are using closure to impose a tax bill of major dimensions on the people of Canada without having regard to the traditional and ancient right of the elected representatives of the people to examine all government tax legislation. The government will have to answer for this, and let us hope that it will not be too long before they have to go to the people of Canada. This government has so badly mismanaged its affairs that it introduced a bill for which subsequently it had to bring in over 130 amendments, and yet they talk about us taking up the time of the House. They are the ones who monopolize the time of the House by introducing an unsatisfactory bill to which they had to bring in over 130 amendments.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: It might be well to repeat the facts. The legislation before the House, as my leader has said, was not introduced until June 30, the day Parliament recessed for the summer. It did not receive second reading until September 13, and it is interesting to note that after it received second reading on September 13 the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), as a result of the government's mismanagement of the economy, had to introduce a minibudget which added further proposals to the tax bill already before the House. They say that we are taking up the time of the House. Notwithstanding the enormity, complexity and importance of the bill-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again, I bring to the attention of hon. members that it is difficult to follow the speech when there are conversations, conferences and caucuses going on in the House. I invite hon. members to give the Chair an opportunity to listen to the speech.


James Aloysius McGrath: What can one expect from the government whip who misuses and abuses rules of the House by walking into the House during the taking of the vote. He would do well to leave this House now.
They talk about taking up the time of the House, Mr. Speaker. We have taken a total of 34 days on this bill, notwithstanding the fact that it contains 707 pages and has over 256 different sections. All I can say is that we have needed the time that has been taken thus far, and indeed we need more time just to deal with the government amendments, and the amendments to those amendments.
The only ones who really stand to gain from the government's ineptitude are the tax lawyers and accountants who cannot wait to get their hands on this mess. In reality this bill contains eight different legislative measures, all of them of tremendous importance.


Mr. Pepin:: Great importance.


James Aloysius McGrath: I would suggest that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce should take off on another one of his junkets, if that is the best he can do in this House. What about the provisions dealing with credit unions and co-ops? That must have been some caucus today, Mr. Speaker. I would have loved to have been in that caucus and hear the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto), and also the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Whelan), who threat-
Business of the House
ened to resign from the Liberal party if the government did not do something about the provisions with respect to co-ops and credit unions.
A bill that directly affects every facet of life in this country, that directly affects the lives of all Canadians deserves the time of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Who will deny our right, and indeed our responsibility, to examine every clause of the bill in detail, and to examine the government's amendments, and its amendments to its own amendments? That is our responsibility, Mr. Speaker, as well as our right. I might add, Mr. Speaker, that government incompetence in the management of the business of the House is directly to blame for the situation in which we are right now. Because of that mismanagement of the business of the House this bill was not introduced until the eleventh hour, and the government's amendments were not introduced until we were well into discussion on the bill; hence, we had no opportunity to examine those amendments.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the use of closure on this bill,-


Mr. Gibson:: It isn't closure.


James Aloysius McGrath: -contemptuous as it is, is an insidious attempt by the government to hide the facts, and the facts are its own mismanagement of the business of the House as well as its mismanagement of the economy. We have never really been given a chance to examine this bill and, what is more important, the people of Canada have not been given an opportunity to examine the bill or the amendments to the bill introduced by the government. That is one of the important functions of Parliament. It is one of the reasons why Parliament must make detailed examination of bills of this magnitude, in order to provide the people of Canada with an opportunity to understand the bills. Parliament provides an opportunity to focus attention on a bill, and provides the people of Canada with an opportunity to react to a bill.
When the government imposes closure on this House it is in fact imposing closure on the whole country by denying the people an opportunity to react to the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: But what I consider to be more important, or perhaps I should say equally important, is what the government is doing to Parliament because in the process members of the government are destroying this institution, and they well know it. I can think of no better authority to quote on how Parliament should function than the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and his words can be found at page 72 of Hansard for September 16, 1968, when he referred to:
-the delicate and essential balance between government and opposition so necessary to the proper functioning of Parliament.
I say to the government of Canada and to the government House leader that they have, in fact, today destroyed that delicate balance, and by destroying that delicate balance between government and opposition they must be prepared to put up with the consequences of their action. What are the consequences of their action? They are a

December 2, 1971
Business of the House
House in which there is no good will, and a House in which they never again can expect to get the co-operation of the combined opposition parties.
Finally, may I just remind the government that it took the King-St. Laurent governments 22 years to become arrogant to the point where they could impose closure. It has taken this government less than four years to achieve the same degree of arrogance, and the same fate awaits it as befell the King-St. Laurent governments after 1957.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, although the subject under discussion is obviously important, it is a bit difficult to see that importance emerge from some of the discussions we have had. I want to deal only with what is before us. I want to say to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) and to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), that consciously or unconsciously they really put the case before the House and, between them, condemned what the government has done, and condemned rule 75c.
I understood the Minister of Transport said he was chasing elephants somewhere in the jungle, when he declared that if the government had not done what it did do, we would be nine months longer studying this bill. I tell him that is not chasing elephants, that is chasing red herrings. I tell him that statement is not honest, that it is not justified, that the co-operation of the opposition parties in allocating time for every section of this bill in Committee of the Whole proves that his statement that it would take nine months more is a total fabrication, and that he ought not to have made it.
The Minister of Transport has the evidence of the actions and the behavior of the opposition parties throughout the discussion in Committee of the Whole when we agreed on a day for this subject, and two days for that subject, and so on. It may well be that agreement could not be given for limiting debate to four days-


Mr. Sharp:: Or five.


David Lewis: It may well be that the government House leader could not get agreement on any particular number of days, but as the House leader for our party pointed out, that does not mean to say that if he had continued to seek the co-operation of the opposition parties he would not have got it. Perhaps by agreement it could have taken six days or eight days.


Colin David Gibson: Or nine?


David Lewis: The second point I want to make is in connection with a statement made by the Minister of Justice. I may not have it word for word, but I think I have it basically correct. I believe he said that democracy means debate but it also means decision after debate. That is the kind of trite statement that really attempts to hide the subject. Let the Minister of Justice visit some children in any public school and tell them the same thing, and they will all raise their hands in agreement with him. Of course, the issue is how long a debate, how deep a debate, how broad a debate-not the silly trite nonsense that you have to get to a decision some time. Who the devil disagrees with him on that?
The fact is that what the Minister of Justice said was echoed later by the Minister of Transport. Again I have not got it word for word, but I think the essence of it was

that when we debate something for what the government considers adequate time, the government wants the right to have a decision made. Who the devil are they to make that decision? The government makes that kind of decision only if it abrogates to itself the kind of arrogant and absolutely totalitarian powers which it included in rule 75C. That is why we opposed it in 1968-69. That is why we were ready to agree with 75A and 75B seeking a House order when parties have agreed unanimously, or by a majority. And that is why we opposed 75C because we recognized it placed in the hands of the government a power which it will abuse, and it is abusing that power today.
Mr. Speaker, it is for them alone to say how long this debate can take. I do not say that the debate should be endless; I do not say that there should not be agreement on allocation of time from day to day as we go along and I am sure that can be obtained. If the debate had lasted a long time anyone could legitimately and reasonably say it was too long and then perhaps the government would have a case to go and plead with Parliament to do something. I say to the ministers, to the House leader, to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), that even though they add everything up and say we have had 37 days of debate, 12 on second reading and 25 in committee of the whole, that that is not only not an unreasonable length of time to debate this bill but it is obviously an inadequate length of time to debate it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: A bill that deals with every aspect of life and the economy of Canada as far as it affects income tax and other aspects of taxation and covers 707 pages requires three or four months of study instead of only 25 days or 37 days, and it cannot be said that sufficient time has been taken.
Nobody has referred to this point, Mr. Speaker, and I want to make it with all the force I can: this government is guilty not only of arrogance in the way it is dealing with the question of time now but was guilty of stupidity or arrogance or duplicity or something else when it drafted the bill. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) said that members of the opposition can vote against the clauses they do not like. Let me tell him that unless you, Sir, change what are the habits of this House there will not be any opportunity to vote on each clause that we do not like. This is because the mandarins, who really draw up the legislation, drew one clause for the most important part of the bill. Clause 1 is 596 pages long and deals with 256 subclauses. It deals with every aspect of the tax law that is important. It deals with exemptions, with capital gains, with exemptions for mining and oil companies. Every aspect of income tax that we are concerned with is in one clause, Mr. Speaker, and we will be able to vote only once on that clause. That was done deliberately, Mr. Speaker; that cannot have been an accident.
No one can tell me that the advisers to the government or the Minister of Finance could not see what they were doing, that they were placing Parliament in an absolutely impossible straitjacket in having to vote on one clause
December 2, 1971

that covers all the sections of the new tax bill. They knew what they were doing and they did it for exactly the same reason they have done everything else. There is some sugar in the clauses, there is some pepper and bitterness in the clauses, and they intend to make members of the opposition vote either for the sugar or for the pepper in a bill deliberately designed to confuse and make it impossible for an intelligent discussion or an intelligent vote to be taken on every part of the tax law, which is what we should have had.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that most of the difficulty as to time has arisen out of that shameful, stupid or deliberately arrogant way of presenting the bill, because we have not been able to deal with a clause or two and then go on to something else. I want to make it clear that we will vote against the motion and we will vote against the bill. I want to make it clear also that our opposition is not that of the Progressive Conservative party. We are not here to protect the corporations and the difficulties they will have. We are here to protest the way in which the government, through the bill, is twisting the economy and threatening our future by the concessions it makes to the corporations.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that it was unnecessary for the government to take this step and that it is impossible for anyone who has any concern for Parliament or democracy to vote for this motion.


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for a new member of the House to join the distinguished company that has already participated in this debate.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That won't put you in the same package.


James Alexander Jerome: I notice that the first one to holler is the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) who is distinguished, of course, for the piece of the action he got while his side was in government. That is why he is so happy now.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I think there is some hurting over there today.


James Alexander Jerome: I want to say., Mr. Speaker, that the trepidation I feel in entering the debate is made the more obvious because of the last interjection from the other side. It is trepidation not because of the opposition but because of the quality of the contributions I have to follow from this side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: You won't have to be very good.


James Alexander Jerome: I should like to point out two things. First, the approximately 100 members of this House who, like myself, were newly elected in this Parliament learned very quickly that the veterans of this Parliament seemed to feel that somehow they had a monopoly or patent on the formula for parliamentary democracy and that their
Business of the House
understanding of it in the endless days of debate and filibuster was the kind of understanding and appreciation and pride in our parliamentary institutions that was shared throughout the country.
If I have no other task this afternoon except to destroy that myth, Mr. Speaker, it will be my pleasure to do so because I want to say that particularly among the young people of this country it is indeed a myth. What should be a sense of pride in this institution, in its efficiency, in its work and in its decisions is more often, pitifully, a sense of disgust at the procrastination, the filibustering, the needless delay in this Parliament in getting anything done.


An hon. Member:: There is a Fascist speech!


James Alexander Jerome: The point is, Mr. Speaker, that it is not a matter of any pride among the people of this country to know that we are the last of the Parliaments to embrace something that should have been done some time ago, something that has been embraced in every other country in the world, some kind of intelligent system for programming, not after the fact as is the rule with closure but programming in advance as is the case with the time allocation rule for debating time in this House and the calendarization of the parliamentary year.
Mr. Speaker, public demands and the precedents of other Parliaments led us to this point where, after much battle, we introduced and implemented a time allocation rule. I say to those who have continually used the word "closure" that it is surprising that they want to rush to that term when they know it is false and does not apply to this rule. Most of the time they rush to the public and the media. They pride themselves on the precision of their language, on their integrity and honesty in this chamber, but they know when they call this closure that they are being dishonest because that is not what it is.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Alexander Jerome: It was out of that spirit, out of the desire for some intelligent programming of the business of this House that is evident in every other Parliament of the world, that the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization met at the beginning of this Parliament. In this spirit of tremendous co-operation, which was an example to me as a new member, the House leaders of all parties achieved a number of very beneficial rule changes not the least of which were rules 75a, 75b and 75c.
It is no news that rule 75a which provides for time allocation in the event of unanimous agreement amongst House leaders added little to the procedures of the House because basically things have been that way. We all know that when all are agreed this House can set time limits as it wishes.
Standing Order 75c was really the departure from previous practice and a step into the future in line with what other Parliaments have done in that it provided some machinery whereby time allocation could be proposed and voted upon by the House in cases where the House leaders were not in agreement. All members of that com-

December 2, 1971
Business of the House
mittee will agree that Standing Order 75b was put forward as a compromise between the two positions. Shortly after it was brought before the House, the salient feature of the Standing Order seemed to be the fact that the majority proposed in 75b did not include the government. Many since then, both in the House and outside, have said that, theoretically, the absence of the government from that majority envisaged in 75b makes the rule unworkable. I disagree, Mr. Speaker, and I want to say to the House that, from my understanding of the proceedings of that committee and the spirit which governed that committee, if that rule had been drafted any differently the debate on it in the House would have been even more acrimonious than was the case. I believe that this rule is being put forward in this taxation debate in a most exemplary manner and shows the will of Parliament. We have not come to the point yet at which we are prepared to accept the kind of time allocation rule adopted by the British Parliament. Nor have we come to the point at which, as in Australia, an officer of the House is responsible for negotiating all the timing of debates. The Canadian Parliament has moved slowly; at least, however, it has taken a step by introducing rules 75a, 75b and 75c. It is fortunate for Parliament and the country that the rule is being first invoked on such an important measure of such broad scope.
The most significant feature of the rule, and I want to draw this to the attention of the public, is this. If the House leaders of the opposition parties want to frustrate the government, they may be able to do so by agreeing unanimously among themselves on how long to debate a measure and thus make up the majority stipulated under 75b and put forward a proposal for time allocation in that respect. The significant part about what has happened has probably been missed by a great many of the public and the media, and I want to stress this now. The most important feature of this entire debate is to be found in the fact that the two smaller opposition parties, the New Democrats and the Creditistes, in addition to being opposed to passage of the bill for their own reasons and principles, have been even more opposed to the proposition brought forward by the official opposition. Far from being in any way united with the official opposition, the smaller parties are diametrically opposed to what the official opposition has put forward in seemingly good faith. That proposal, I say, was never put forward in good faith. It was never, at any time, more than a sham designed to bring this debate to the ground.
It is significant in that regard to remember that several days ago, before any talk of time allocation had arisen with respect to this measure, the Leader of the Opposition was prepared to come before this House with a text. He made his speech later in the day before the media. I give him due credit for wanting to make it in the House. He could not. Hon. members will recall the exact day, because that was the day when the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) moved concurrence in the report of the Indian Affairs Committee and it was not possible for the Leader of the Opposition to make his speech that afternoon. That day his remarks were made to the media. He suggested that closure would have to be invoked on the bill and he said that when there had been no such discussion. That was a prepared statement, made on the
very same day that his representatives, in negotiations, put forward what they now call an intelligent proposal to split the bill. They knew it would never be accepted. They knew it could do nothing less than destroy the negotiations. It was a stall and a shameful sham that they put before this Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


James Alexander Jerome: The commentary on that need not come from our side of the House, Mr. Speaker. A much more elegant and eloquent commentary came from the leader of the NDP when he refused to support the official opposition. It came from the leader and members of the Credi-tiste party when they refused to accept that proposition. Mr. Speaker, that was responsible conduct on the part of two of the opposition parties in this House. Since they did not use the rule to frustrate, I submit that they recognize that the government has the right and the responsibility to govern through Parliament, that legislation after it has been debated must come to a vote. They could try to stop all this if they wanted to; however, they have refused to associate themselves with the sham put forward by the official opposition. I therefore say that there is no difficulty here. The rule has a safeguard. It stands there as a credit to the smaller opposition parties. What we shall bring in is not closure but a reflection of the will of this Parliament, a will which is in favour of intelligent government planning rather than useless procrastination, of logical procedure and government decision rather than the kind of useless delay, frustration and filibuster that seem to have been the tactic and intent in this debate of the official opposition.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this historical debate on the government motion to introduce closure may I say at the very beginning that I have been disappointed in the strength of the arguments put forward by government members and I was particularly disappointed by the speech of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) who undoubtedly must be under a great deal of strain. He has seen true examples of Liberal arrogance in Newfoundland and no doubt he sees shades of that arrogance become ever more evident in the federal Parliament. No doubt that was getting under his skin and that was why he was not himself today. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) made a weak defence of the government's action in this regard. I will deal with his speech later.
Before saying more may I correct something raised by the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome). He said we should get to the position in which we can program our legislation. How can the government program legislation when it keeps bringing in amendments? We are told that the government will introduce more amendments. Why did these amendments come about? They came about as a result of debate and argument, that is to say, as a result of concerted efforts by all members of the House of Commons. We argued in support of changes and we got changes. We dealt with 190 pages of a 707 page bill. The government realized we were making too much sense. They must have said, "We cannot keep introducing more and more amendments."


Mr. Osier:: You could not sell that to your constituents.

December 2, 1971


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member says I could not sell that to my constituents. I could sell that argument much more easily than I could sell this closure. It is important to improve legislation when it has been so poorly drafted in the first instance. The government has brought forward omnibus bills which encompassed too many subject matters. They have been poorly drafted. That is why the government from time to time has had to introduce amendments in order to get bills through the House of Commons.
The comparison that the hon. member for Sudbury made between the Parliament of Canada and the British Parliament is not valid. In the British Parliament 630-odd members are elected. The government controls a country which could be put inside any one of our provinces except Prince Edward Island. There you see the difference. Ours is a vast country, stretching from the Pacific to the Atlantic. It is regional in its makeup and that is why it is all the more important for us to protect our freedom of speech as soon as it is threatened by an arrogant government, no matter what that government may be called.
The Minister of Justice made some interesting remarks. He said the bill is not perfect. He also said that the opposition, in delaying passage of the bill, is causing great economic havoc across the country. If the bill in its present form is passed, havoc will be caused across the country for the next ten years because there will be case after case before the courts. People will try to determine the meaning of the bill and they will want to see how various sections should be interpreted.
Speaking in Vancouver on November 18 on the tax bill, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray), who will have to interpret the sections of the act and collect the taxes, said in part:
Once tax reform comes into effect, the increased need by the taxpayer for rulings and interpretations will make greater demands on the limited numbers of staff engaged in the work.
He went on to say:
I am concerned about the problem involved in finding additional staff that will be needed.
It is no secret when I suggest that once the bill comes into effect the real confusion will start. There will be much litigation and case after case before the courts in an attempt to interpret the exact meaning of the sections of the bill. No doubt there will be much confusion about it. There is validity to the remarks of the Minister of Justice when he says that the country is concerned about the tax bill and concerned about the application of the capital gains tax. The only way of alleviating or overcoming that concern is for the government to take the course suggested by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). Let it split the tax bill, pass those sections dealing with increased exemptions and tax cuts, and deal with the rest of it later after those parts have been more fully debated, improved, and accepted by the provinces.
At the federal-provincial conference here in Ottawa, which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) attended about two weeks ago, five provinces said that the bill in its present form ought not to be proceeded with now. They said it was too complicated, that they did not know how it would fit into provincial tax structures. Surely, if we believe at all in co-operative federalism, when five of the -101
Business of the House
provinces, containing well over 50 per cent of the population, ask that a bill should not be proceeded with, the government should pay some attention to their views. But here we have a government which pays no heed to the wishes of the provinces and as a result there is confusion and concern across the country.
Some members assert that a decision must be taken, that they were elected on June 8, 1968, and the fact of their election gives them the right to do anything they please. Mr. Speaker, in a responsible parliament it does not. They can administer the country, but when it comes to new tax measures they must bring them before Parliament and be responsible to Parliament. In the same way, if it is thought there may be too much filibustering, everyone in the opposition is ultimately responsible to the people. This is really what is meant by responsible government.
If cabinet ministers feel they can go across the country in the next election and kiss a few babies, dive off a few high-diving boards, do a back flip or two and win the support of the people they are being badly fooled. The people of Canada have seen all the arrogance they want and they do not need the government to demonstrate it to them any more. In the next election they will want to see evidence of a concerted policy, a clear statement of what the government intends to do.
Where is the Minister of Finance? Where has he been during this debate? He has not been here during this debate. And he will not be around during the next election, the papers say. Where is the Prime Minister? He left the House shortly after some of the initial statements were made. Can he not stand the heat? I see his parliamentary secretary is here, but he is not responsible except for keeping the Prime Minister out of trouble, something he failed to do when he was in Russia with him. These ministers are not around. They do not want to contribute anything to the work of this Parliament. They believe they have a supreme right to rule and do whatever they want to do.
Implementation of closure convinces me, and will convince everybody across the country, that the government believes it has a divine right to rule and that it can continue to rule no matter what happens. Their attitude is somewhat reminiscent of Joey Smallwood's attitude in Newfoundland. This government feels exactly the same way as he does. They thought of calling an election last fall, but they did not do so because they became a little worried; they did not know whether they could blame all Canada's troubles on the United States. They will get their tax bill, apparently, after closure, and then their troubles will begin. They will not call an election next year either; they will go to the limit and then the Prime Minister will find some reason for not calling an election at all. He will find trouble in one of the provinces among the ten and then say there will not be an election at all. For the moment, though, it is a case of an arrogant government using closure to impose its will.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise briefly under the provisions of Standing Order 37(1).

December 2, 1971
Division
When I was speaking this afternoon between 2.40 and 2.50 I referred several times to the proposition that if this motion were to carry the votes at the end of the Committee of the Whole stage would take place at a quarter to six on Wednesday. That statement was obviously based on the assumption that there would be four more days for discussion. However, when I study the motion carefully I realize that the four days could end on Tuesday. Therefore, when I said the votes would be taken at a quarter to six on Wednesday I should have said they would be taken at a quarter to ten on Tuesday night.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure I accept the interpretation of the hon. member at this moment, without reflection, but I understand he is making his point in order to correct his interpretation of the Standing Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And only if the motion passes.


Mr. Speaker:: That is correct.
It being 4.17 o'clock p.m., the two hours provided for the consideration of 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. Order, please.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please?


Some hon. Members:: Remove him!


Mr. Mahoney:: Out!


Mr. Speaker:: Messrs:
MacLean	Rodrigue
Macquarrie	Rondeau
MacRae	Rowland
McCleave	Ryan
McGrath	Rynard
McIntosh	Schumacher
McKinley	Scott
McQuaid	Simpson
Marshall	Skoreyko
Mather	Southam
Matte	Stanfield
Mazankowski	Tetrault
Monteith	Thomas
Moore	(Moncton)
Nesbitt	Thompson
Nowlan	(Red Deer)
Orlikow	Valade
Paproski	Winch
Peddle	Woo Hi a ms
Peters	Yewchuk-80.
Ritchie


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to seek clarification. Now that the motion has been passed, according to the motion four sitting days shall be allotted to the further consideration in committee of the whole. I note it is almost ten minutes to five o'clock. At five o'clock there will be private members' business, and after eight o'clock we will be seeking information from the government on questions and other matters. That may leave anywhere from an hour or an hour and a quarter for further consideration in committee if the whole. I therefore seek from the Chair clarification that today is not a day within the meaning of the four sitting days as stated in the motion.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I note there is a point of order here but from my point of view it would be quite acceptable, without asking the Chair to rule on the point of order, that the fourth day begin at the beginning of the next sitting.


Donald MacInnis: When is the first day going to start?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I meant to say the first day.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That was understood. I wonder whether the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) is rising on the same point of order.


Mr. McCleave:: It is a different point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member says it is a different point of order. I am not sure whether it is necessary to rule, but in view of the fact that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) indicated earlier today that his interpretation was that this meant four days beginning today, perhaps I should make a ruling. My interpretation would be that the four days would begin tomorrow. I think we could have taken up most of the day as we actually are going to do now: with the question period and routine proceedings we might well proceed
Business of the House
through a substantial part of the evening sitting. So the four days would really be four days beginning tomorrow.
I do not know whether this is a precedent for the many instances in the future when the House will be called upon to vote on a motion under Standing Order 75C, but I would think that should be the normal interpretation of the Standing Order.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, since we are being denied the right to examine many important amendments to this bill, including amendments the government House leader introduced today, and since I have some responsibility as do other members with regard to examining this legislation for the people of Canada, I ask if the government House leader would be disposed to give consideration to extending the hours of sitting during those four days.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would be quite happy to extend the sittings in accordance with the discussions we might have among the parties, by motion or by bringing in a suggestion in the form of a house order tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the understanding the House has just reached, to the effect that the four days will begin on Friday, I was correct in my original understanding that the committee of the whole stage would end on Wednesday. The correction I made under Standing Order 37(1) was apparently unnecessary. I was right the first time.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, in rising on a point of order I thought I would try to introduce an element of orderly consideration into the problems we face as a result of the vote. The point I wanted to make was simply that because we are faced with a rather large catalogue of tax changes, because we are faced with a rather smaller catalogue- but still pretty impressive-of the implementation of corrections and changes, and because we are now faced with four days of having to deal with these changes in committee of the whole, would it be possible to reach some kind of understanding this evening concerning a deadline in respect of notice about changes which are to be brought in?
* (4:50 p.m.)
The reason I ask is simply that at the very last moment 100 new changes might be thrown at us which we would never have the chance to consider and debate. If we could get some idea from the government as to when new changes as to co-operatives and credit unions would be brought in, at least we would know where we are going. That was my point of order.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I assure my hon. friend that we will produce the amendments relating to co-operatives and credit unions as soon as possible, and I will make inqui-

December 2, 1971
Business of the House
ries to determine whether they can be available before the weekend. If there are any other amendments, although I do not think there are, I will advise my hon. friend.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in view of the reference made a moment ago. I wonder if it would not be more sensible if the House had the question period between 5 p.m. and 5.40 p.m., rather than going into private members' business and having the question period tonight. We could either postpone private members' hour to eight o'clock or suspend it altogether.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There seems to be no agreement in this respect. My understanding of the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is that we dispense with private members' hour and have the question period and routine proceedings immediately. This would require the unanimous consent of the House. I will ask again whether there is unanimity in this respect.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimity, so we will have to proceed with the order of business as provided by the Standing Orders.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier today, without reflecting on the move, the House adopted a motion that would cut off debate on the taxation bill by some time late Wednesday afternoon. It now appears that in so doing we were assenting to this without realizing that amendments would not necessarily be before the House today or even tomorrow. I wonder how it will be possible for us to limit debate, the subject matter of which has not yet been placed before the House or may not even be placed before us shortly before the termination of the debate next Wednesday afternoon.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would have to rule, if that would answer the point of the hon. member, that it seems to me this was the purpose of the two-hour debate which was terminated by a vote. I do not think I could suggest that the result of the vote be changed on the basis of the information which has been given since then.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I rise on a further point of order. I thought it was clear at the time the House leader was speaking that amendments to which he referred would automatically be tabled this afternoon. It is a difference of some magnitude that amendments which were only referred to may not even be presented when perhaps more than half the allotted time has expired, placing not just this House but thousands-indeed, millions-of people who will be directly affected by changes in this legislation in an impossible situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Motions.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I gave you notice that I wanted to propose a motion. Are we still on motions or are we going to come back to them later on?
[Mr. MacEachen.J


Mr. Speaker:: We will call the motions in a moment; that is the next order of the day.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 AGRICULTURE LOSSES INCURRED BY CERTAIN QUEBEC PRODUCERS

Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I would have hoped that my notice of motion would have originated from the government.
Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which gives rise to an urgent economic situation and affects a great number of people.
The loss of millions of dollars suffered by hog, egg and turkey producers represents a real disaster which will drive many of them to bankruptcy shortly if the government does not take the necessary action to remedy this situation immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Bellechasse has given notice to the Chair of his intention to move this motion under Standing Order 26.
The hon. member has moreover given the Chair additional information in order to underline the importance and urgency of this matter. I recognize that this is an important and urgent matter of interest, as the hon. member has said, to a great number of Canadians and obviously to all members of this House. The Chair must decide if the business of the House should be interrupted to permit consideration of the question that the hon. member has raised. He will admit that this problem is not new. In fact, during the last weeks, he has had the opportunity of bringing this matter to the attention of the House through the many questions he has directed to the responsible minister day after day. If I remember correctly, he has even proposed that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture pursuant to Standing Order 43.
All this indicates that this is a serious, and even urgent, situation which has existed for some time already. The hon. member suggests that action should be taken immediately to solve this problem. I do not think-and I suggest this to the hon. member with great consideration-that this is the type of question that we can, today at least, ask the House to consider under the provisions of Standing Order 26.
It may be that the situation is changing and that circumstances will become such that the Chair could be convinced by the hon. member or some of his colleagues that a debate should be held under the provisions of Standing Order 26 but, for the time being, I am not prepared to recognize that the business of the House should be adjourned for the purposes suggested by the hon. member for Bellechasse.
December 2, 1971


Mr. Lundrigan:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order for the purpose of clarification. Yesterday the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated he would table an important document on an agreement between Canada and Norway. Is he in a position to table this document, and would the procedure permit him to do so at this time?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have the necessary documents to table. Perhaps I will get a chance before the day is out to ascertain that I have fulfilled the requirements of the hon. gentleman and then I will ask to revert to motions to table them.


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



PRIVATE BILLS


James Alexander Jerome: that Bill S-21, respecting Canadian Pacific Railway Company, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, it was not intended to proceed with this bill. As I understand it, it is to provide authority to build a short piece of railway line to a pulp mill that now is not going to be established. The explanatory note reads:
The purpose of this bill is to authorize Canadian Pacific Railway Company to construct and operate-
Here I quote from clause 1:
-a line of railway commencing from a point in the southwest 1/4 of section 15, township 59, range 14, west of the third meridian in the vicinity of Sergent, in the province of Saskatchewan, at or near mile 75.5 of the company's Meadow Lake subdivision, thence generally in a northerly direction for a distance of 62 miles more or less to a point at or near the boundary between township 68 and township 69, range 12, west of the third meridian in the vicinity of the confluence of the Beaver and Dore Rivers in the said province.
Clause 2 provides:
If the construction of the said line of railway is not commenced within a period of two years or is not completed and put in operation within a period of five years after the passing of this act, the powers of construction hereby conferred upon the company shall cease and be null and void as regards so much of the said line of railway as shall then remain uncompleted.
This piece of spur line in the Meadow Lake subdivision is to serve a pulp and paper plant to be constructed by Athabasca Forest Industries Ltd. Canadian Pacific is asking for this authority from Parliament because the power of the Canadian Transport Commission to authorize construction of branch lines is limited to lines not exceeding 20 miles in length.
It would appear that this branch line is to be built to move the products of Athabasca Forest Industries from that area to the main line. I presume this request for authorization is the result of negotiations between
Private Bills
Canadian Pacific and Athabasca Forest Industries Ltd. This pulp and paper mill was the subject of controversy in Saskatchewan, in particular during the recent provincial election. I presume that following the change of government in Saskatchewan the project has been scuttled. It was one of the grandiose schemes of the late Mr. Thatcher, but the election has changed the circumstances relating to it and I am surprised that the sponsor of the bill has not seen fit to withdraw it.
This afternoon we had an example of the inefficiency of Parliament. Things are not done here in the manner that the man in the street would expect. They are not done as I would expect. It seems logical to me that if construction of the pulp and paper mill is not to proceed, the sponsor of the bill and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company have a responsibility to Parliament to withdraw the bill. I point out that the Senate has already held a hearing on the bill and that in fact Canadian Pacific has another bill before Parliament with respect to the building of a pipeline; in fact, that bill succeeds this one on the order paper.
I can recall when Parliament gave authorization to the Labrador-North Shore Railway Company to build a railway line in the province of Quebec. The line was to go to Ungava and was actually built from Seven Islands to Labrador City. The company refused to put the line into Wabash where another mining company had an operation under development. In fact, the railway company had its own mining operations and even though it had the right to extend the line it wished to keep competing mining companies out of the area. In other words, they did not want to live up to their responsibility as a railway company but wanted to live up to their responsibility as a mining corporation. Until they were ready to mine they did not want anybody else mining there, so although there were seven or eight major iron properties in that area the railway would not be constructed.
The clause in this bill was also in that bill. They came before Parliament at least three times and asked for an extension of five years without any intention of building the line within that time. What they did was get a licence to build it so they could keep everybody else out, which they did. After the third extension this House, in its wisdom, refused to give an additional extension to the railway.
The Wabash iron mines wanted to build a line beyond Labrador City and were told that not only would this railway company not extend the line to Wabash but they would not allow connections from Wabash to the Labrador Northshore line. There was a Supreme Court case and the decision was reached that Wabash would be given a line because they threatened to put a line of their own right down to the St. Lawrence. They were given the right to put in a line and connect to this other line at Labrador City. Northshore was instructed that they must carry the iron ore from Wabash because they were given the right to be a common carrier and therefore could not restrict anyone else from using the facilities.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that this bill should be withdrawn. I see nothing wrong with Canadian Pacific Railway coming to Parliament and asking for the right to put in this line. However, as I understand the Railway Act

December 2. 1971
Private Bills
there is the restriction that is written into this bill which says that within two years you must start construction, and the line must be constructed within five years, or you must reapply for a charter to build a line of over 20 miles.
This is not a small company coming to us because they made a mistake or did not know. I am sure this railway has top advisers who can advise them of the potential of this project. I am sure they would agree, because of the fight during the election, that in the foreseeable future it is not likely there will be a pulp mill in that area. I am saying that from a political point of view. There are two sides to the question, but it seems that the problem is settled at least for the time being.
No financial institution in Canada today will allow money to be spent for a pulp mill, unless it is out of its cotton-picking mind. Probably the only people I can put into that category are those in the Department of Regional Economic Expansion who are still supporting the extension of some areas when other areas of the country are facing massive lay-offs in the pulp and paper industry. There is no market today for our pulp and paper and it is not likely that anybody except the Department of Regional Economic Expansion would even consider such a project.
I am sure Canadian Pacific Railway is aware of these facts. To be fair to the mover of this motion, Mr. Speaker, I would have thought he would have been informed that they wish to withdraw the bill and, if necessary, re-submit it. The need for this bill does not now exist.


Mr. Cadieu:: How do you know?


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Cadieu) asks me how I know. When this bill was asked for, a full-scale operation was going on for the establishment of a pulp and paper mill in that area by Athabasca Forest Industries Ltd. The hon. member knows, and I know, that as long as that project was progressing with reasonable alacrity there had to be a parallel project by the railway company to raise the financing and meet the legal requirements for the building of a spur line.
I am not suggesting that we will not have a shortage of pulp within two years or that we will not need more paper in the international field. All I am suggesting is that the development of the pulp and paper mill has to be parallelled with the spur line. If no development takes place in the industry, then there is no need for the developement of a spur line. I am sure the hon. member for Meadow Lake would not disagree that if we pass this bill, within two years the line must start and at the end of five years it must be completed. If there is no reason other than the pulp mill to put that spur line in, obviously he will not get any benefit because no trains will be running over it. I am sure that in the interests of economy and common sense he would agree with that.
If this railway is not proceeded with-and my information is that there is no intention to proceed with it-I would strongly urge that the hon. member for Meadow Lake inform this House whether there are other developments that the spur line would handle. In the explanatory note of this bill it is specifically mentioned that the purpose of establishing these 62 miles of line is to serve a pulp and paper plant to be constructed by Athabasca Forest

Industries Ltd. Nothing is said about servicing the elevator in that area, and I am not familiar with its location. I must take the information that is available to me.
A number of statements concerning this matter have been made by the government of Saskatchewan. It has said that it will review the matter of supplies and whether there is any possibility of success with regard to what is proposed here. Feasibility studies will be undertaken and until those feasibility studies have been completed this project will not be considered.
I am suggesting that the House should not consider this bill in a vacuum. We do not know whether this line is a feasible proposition. That being so, we should consider other pieces of legislation that are obviously more current and much more to the point.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Before recognizing the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Cadieu) it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave)-National Security-Authority for payment of special force; the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert)-Canadian National Railways-Metro Development Centre, Toronto-Alleged agreement to demolish Union Station; the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath)-Regional Economic Expansion

Atlantic Development Council report-Inquiry as to decision on recommendations.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Jerome (for Mr. Sulatycky) that Bill S-21, respecting Canadian Pacific Railway Company, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: Mr. Speaker, I did not plan to speak on this bill. I thought that possibly the bill would be withdrawn. I understand that the deal for the pulp mill in question as between the Saskatchewan government and Parsons and Whitmore had not been completed when the provincial government was defeated. The present government of Saskatchewan, and Parsons and Whitmore, are still negotiating and if the line is not built within the next two years the proposition will not be considered. I do not think we should waste the time of the House discussing this matter. We do not know whether the people concerned will get together and if this line will be
December 2, 1971

Inquiries of the Ministry AFTER RECESS
built. I therefore do not see any point in taking up the time of the House on this bill.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I think there is a disposition in the House to pass this motion referring the bill to the standing committee and then call it six o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the point I wish to make is that I think my colleague, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), is saying that the bill ought to be withdrawn. He has indicated to me that if the procedure suggested were followed the withdrawal could take place in committee. On that basis we would go along with the suggestion made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Jerome). It is too bad the ministers are not present, because we could hold the question period.


Mr. Haidasz:: Mr. Speaker, would it be possible to proceed with Bill S-22, with the permission of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair)?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair feels that the best procedure would be for the motion to be put in relation to Bill S-21. When a decision has been rendered on it, the House must decide what it will then do. Is the parliamentary secretary seeking the floor? I might say that I do not think the parliamentary secretary should seek the floor to discuss the point raised by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) because I think the two matters are not directly related.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, it would be unfair to hon. members opposite if I did not indicate accurately my understanding with regard to this matter. A private bill is before the House. Hon. members have spoken on it. There are at least two other hon. members who are available and who will talk on it until six o'clock. They could talk it out. On the other hand, if the House gives its unanimous consent those hon. members are prepared to see the bill referred to the standing committee, to then call it six o'clock and not to exercise their prerogative of talking on the bill until six o'clock. I know that the other measure which the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) referred to is important but it does not constitute part of the acknowledged agreement that was today entered into by hon. members. Going ahead with it would be unfair. As I say, hon. member are prepared to speak on the bill before the House until six o'clock, but they will exercise their option of not speaking if the bill is sent to committee. We could then call it six o'clock and leave to another day the next measure.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Pursuant to the agreement reached by the House, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At 5.30 p.m. the House took recess.
The House resumed at 8 p.m.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister concerning the auto pact. The government of Ontario allegedly stated that the safeguards under the auto pact are essential and that, if possible, the production guaranteed to Canada should be increased. Will the government be making a statement on its position regarding the auto pact before the Prime Minister leaves for his visit with President Nixon next week?


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not
think the hon. member has quoted the Premier of Ontario correctly. At least, that is not what I understood him to say. In any event, the answer to the question is, no. The government has been negotiating an auto agreement over a period of some months and negotiations have not reached a point where the government can make a statement.



CANADA-U.S. AUTO PACT-INQUIRY AS TO AGREEMENT ON PRODUCTION GUARANTEES

Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Can the
Acting Prime Minister say whether any consensus has been reached between officials of the United States government and Canadian officials regarding the production guarantees as they now stand under the auto pact. Can he assure us that the auto pact has not been weakened?


Mitchell William Sharp: I have not, of course, taken part in the discussions among the officials. The advice I have received is that an agreement has not been reached and, of course, they cannot reach agreement; only the representatives of the two governments can reach agreement.



CANADA-U.S. AUTO PACT-CONSULTATION WITH ONTARIO-MAINTENANCE OF PRODUCTION GUARANTEE

Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The Premier of Ontario has asked that the Ontario minister for trade and development be given an opportunity to meet with the federal Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Has that idea been taken up and is it the intention to arrange such a meeting before the Prime Minister goes to Washington?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I did not realize that my question was so important. I wish to thank hon. members

December 2, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
for that applause. In all seriousness, is there to be such a meeting and, if so, when?


Jean-Luc Pepin: However competent he may be, the Acting Prime Minister cannot know everything that is going on. The minister seemed to imply the other day that such a meeting had not taken place. In fact, a meeting did take place between representatives of the federal government and of the government of Ontario at which the situation of the automobile agreement was received quite fully. The views of the Ontario government are well known to myself and to my department.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Can the minister assure us that the safeguards which are so essential will be maintained and that the auto pact will not be weakened as a result of this forthcoming meeting?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the minister of trade and development of Ontario showed a much more sophisticated approach than the hon. gentleman does, at least in his present question. He said he was interested in the maintenance of the advantages of the automotive agreement for Canada, and we agree with him entirely in that respect.



MANPOWER


Mr. William Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the announcement by the minister's parliamentary secretary on November 24 that the local initiatives program would exclude hospitals and educational institutions, is the minister prepared to make a statement on motions in explanation of this policy?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: The reasoning is rather simple. It was thought that the likely demands for assistance under the local initiative program would be so great that some narrowing of the criteria would be desirable in order to avoid too great a flood of submissions. The objective is to provide as many jobs as possible with as little administrative delay as possible.


William George Knight: In view of the fact that some hospitals, such as the Weyburn Union Hospital, went to the expense of hiring architects to draw up plans in an effort to qualify under the local initiative program, is the minister prepared to reconsider the policy of excluding hospitals from the ambit of this program?


Otto Emil Lang: We are presently considering whether changing the criteria would improve the program. I cannot say that anything will be excluded under the terms of this review, but I must tell the House that the flood of applications at the moment is such as to justify the approach we have taken.



LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-POSSIBLE CHANGE IN CRITERIA-REQUEST FOR PROGRESS REPORT ON PROJECTS APPROVED

David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Since only a few projects have so far been approved, though we have now entered the month of December, and since it has not been possible to accept many projects under the criteria initially enunciated, can the minister tell us whether these criteria are to be further considered?


Otto Emil Lang: First, I should correct the hon. member. He suggests there have been changes in the criteria governing programs. There have been no changes up to this point. I expect a great number of applications to be approved in the very near future.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I did not say the criteria had been changed as yet. In view of the fact that all of the projects will not be acceptable under the original criteria, might there not be some further elaboration or restriction of the criteria? Can the minister say whether this is under consideration. Secondly, could the minister indicate when he might be able to make a further progress report, particularly on those projects that are ready to begin on the say so of the minister's department?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will be able, I believe, to give further information about the decisions taken very shortly. I do not expect any narrowing of the criteria in connection with the programs since within the initial criteria I believe the department can select those applications that produce the best result in terms of number of jobs created.



LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-SASKATCHEWAN PROTEST WITH REGARD TO EXCLUSION OF SCHOOL PROJECTS

['Mr. Speaker, it is my hope and expectation to be in Brussels next week for the meeting of NATO powers. Perhaps my colleague the Minister of National Defence will be there, too. We have been one of the strongest advocates in NATO of mutual and balanced force reductions. We will be continuing to press for this, which involves not unilateral reductions but multilateral reductions.']
Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether he has received a telegram from the minister of municipal affairs for Saskatchewan protesting the exclusion of school projects, regardless of whether they are construction projects or renovation projects, from the scope of the local initiatives program? If so, would the minister indicate his response to this representation?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have received the telegram. It came to hand today but I have not replied to it yet.



Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Could he say to the House whether Canada will attend the Brussels meeting next week and what position it

December 2, 1971

intends to take. Will it decide in favour of a unilateral reduction of Canadian armed forces or will it object thereto?
In addition, will Canada follow the example of the United States by maintaining its undertaking in favour of a strong Atlantic alliance?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is my hope and expectation to be in Brussels next week for the meeting of NATO powers. Perhaps my colleague the Minister of National Defence will be there, too. We have been one of the strongest advocates in NATO of mutual and balanced force reductions. We will be continuing to press for this, which involves not unilateral reductions but multilateral reductions.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the critical economic conditions in eastern Nova Scotia caused in part by the continued closing of the Acadia fisheries plants at Mulgrave and Canso, and in view of the minister's recent visit to the area in connection with negotiations that have been going on between the minister's department, the province of Nova Scotia and the proposed operator, can the minister now inform the House when we may expect some decision on federal aid for this vital project?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, last week I met with the minister responsible for development in Nova Scotia, Mr. Fisher.
We are now reviewing the matter and I hope to make a decision within a week.



NEWFOUNDLAND-FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO FISH PLANT AT BURGEO

James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which I direct to the Minister of Fisheries. What steps is the federal government taking to assist in the reopening of the fish plant at Burgeo, which is a very important fish plant on the south coast of Newfoundland in the constituency of the Minister of Transport?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, we are looking at the matter very carefully.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate.


James Aloysius McGrath: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate. Hon. members have probably noticed that practically every member to my left
Inquiries of the Ministry
is seeking the floor to ask a question. Hon. members will realize that they cannot all be recognized if there are too many supplementaries. For the moment the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate and will return to the hon. member for St. John's East in a moment.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker,
I have a brief question for the Acting Prime Minister. Can the hon. gentleman inform the House whether the government's trend predictions indicate that the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate this winter will reach 8.2 per cent with approximately 10 per cent in the province of Quebec?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I saw a reference to this in the press as well, but certainly this is not any seasonally adjusted expectation.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, in view of that response and the response of the Minister of Finance, who I believe said "nonsense" when I asked my question, can the Acting Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance indicate whether they have made any trend predictions and, if so, have enough confidence in them to make them public?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, we have not been making our forecasts, which we make for internal purposes, public. We hope that they are fairly accurate but we have no intention of publishing them.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mitchell William Sharp: While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I said a little earlier that I should like to take the opportunity of tabling some documents that had been requested. Might I have permission to do so now?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table copies of an agreement between the government of Canada and the government of Norway on sealing and the conservation of seal stocks in the northwest Atlantic, dated July 15, 1971; and also an exchange of notes between the government of Canada and the government of Norway constituting an agreement with respect to Norwegian fishing practices off the Atlantic coast of Canada of the same date.


John Howard Lundrigan: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


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


John Howard Lundrigan: In view of the fact that no statement was made on motions on the tabling of this document, which is an agreement between Canada and Norway that permits

December 2, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
the country of Norway to violate our territorial seas nine miles off our coast, I wonder whether it would be in order to ask Your Honour if unanimous consent could be given to permit comments on the tabling of the document.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Do I understand that the hon. member is asking leave to have the document appended to Hansard? Is that his request?


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of the document, I think some hon. member on this side of the House should be permitted, by unanimous consent, to respond to this violation of our territorial seas resulting from this agreement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. What the hon. member is asking for is a debate. He can do that only if the House reverts to motions and a statement is made. Does the House give unanimous consent to reverting to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Donald MacInnis: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have to recognize the hon. member on a point of order.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, my point of order stems from the statement made this afternoon by the Acting Prime Minister to the effect that later today he would ask permission to revert to motions in order to table a document. The very minister who made that promise is now refusing to carry it out.


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


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In light of the inconsistency between the declared purposes of NATO, which include strengthening free institutions, and the practices of the Greek military dictatorship, will Canada at the forthcoming session of the NATO council join with Denmark and Norway in seeking action for the restoration of free institutions in Greece?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is not the intention of the Canadian government to use the NATO forum for this purpose. We have made our views known directly to the government of Greece, but not in the council of NATO.


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister.
What ministers will accompany the Prime Minister on his visit to the President of the United States early next week?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce will be accompanying the Prime Minister to Washington.



INDUSTRY


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
I thank the Acting Prime Minister for informing the House that the hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) will be accompanying the Prime Minister of Canada on the occasion of his meeting with the President of the United States.
Does the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce intend to promote sales to the United States of Canadair CL-215 amphibian aircraft in order to stimulate the aircraft industry in Canada and thus avoid lay-offs at Canadair?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the federal government's endeavours in behalf of the company involved are well known and should the United States government need that type of aircraft I shall promote them.



FAMILY INCOME SECURITY


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question was to be directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who is supposed to be in the House, but in his absence I will direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the poverty that exists in this country today, could the Acting Prime Minister assure the House that the increases in benefits under the family allowance program will be effective by May 1, 1972, as proposed by Bill C-264?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would be the last to try to prophesy what will happen in this House. Certainly, the government would like to proceed with this legislation but, as you know, unless it uses extreme measures it cannot always get its way.


Jack Marshall: A supplementary question. I can assure the Acting Prime Minister that if this Bill C-264 came before the House-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
(Mr. Lundrigan.J
December 2, 1971



NATIONAL DEFENCE


J. Michael Forrestall: My question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The day before yesterday, the minister attempted to respond to the right hon. member for Prince Albert who had asked him whether he would consider tabling the documents signed by the present President of the Treasury Board on June 7, 1963 with respect to production sharing, research and development with the United States, before he goes to that country this weekend?


Jean-Luc Pepin: By the way, I am still waiting for my $10 bet multiplied by two from the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: With regard to the question, there is a motion for the tabling of papers, motion No. 264 if my memory serves me well, which will provide an opportunity for the opposition, and the member who presented the motion, to demonstrate to the House and to the Canadian public that it would be in the national interest to table the document referred to now. I am waiting to hear these arguments.


J. Michael Forrestall: A supplementary question. Do I gather from the minister's response that a secret document or secret understanding does exist between Canada and the United States with regard to the maintenance of the dollar balance, the exchange of arms and a research and development program?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the opposition is looking for leaks and secrets at the moment. I do not have to treat this as secret because it was fully reported in the House by the then Minister of Defence Production, now the President of the Treasury Board-


J. Michael Forrestall: It was not.


Jean-Luc Pepin: -on June 7, 1963. I will give the hon. member the page number in Hansard.


J. Michael Forrestall: I read it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Meadow Lake. Is the minister rising on a question of privilege?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I rise on a question of privilege to defend the position of the President of the Treasury Board.


J. Michael Forrestall: Defend your own position.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Anyone who looks at Hansard for June 7, 1963-


J. Michael Forrestall: I have.


Jean-Luc Pepin: -will see-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a question of privilege. It is debate between a member and a minister.
Inquiries of the Ministry
The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Meadow Lake.



AGRICULTURE


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: My question is for the
Minister of Transport. In his absence, I will direct it to his Parliamentary Secretary. It concerns agriculture, but that minister is not present either. Out of two recent shipments of feeder cattle from Alberta, one of 700 head from Fort Macleod and the other approximately 900 head from Brooks, Alberta, by Canadian Pacific Railways, approximately two dozen head died. Agriculture officials checked and found that the animals did not die from any disease. The explanation of the CPR is that because of a heavy snowfall in Winnipeg, the cattle did not get enough feed, water and rest at that point. Is the minister investigating why these feeder cattle did not receive sufficient feed, water and care in Winnipeg, as a result of which they died en route to Toronto?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Can we assume that the question has been asked? If the hon. member wants more information, he can ask a supplementary. The minister might be allowed to reply to the first part of the question.


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: A supplementary question. Will the minister ensure that the investigation is made public and that complete compensation will be provided to the owners?


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the department has recently been informed of this problem. We are investigating the whole matter. If necessary, we will make a report in the House in due course.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY. ALLEGED AGREEMENT OF UNITED STATES TO DEVALUE DOLLAR-REQUEST THAT CANADIAN DOLLAR CONTINUE TO FLOAT

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In doing so, may I welcome him back from the IMF conference in Rome. In view of the fact that reports from the conference indicate that the government of the United States may agree to devaluation of the American dollar by 5 per cent or more, will the minister assure the House that the Canadian government will not peg the Canadian dollar at its present level, but will allow it to float in accordance with the international currency market?


Hon. E. I. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, a great many propositions were put forward in Rome and considered by the ministers of finance and governors of banks who were present. I stated our position quite clear-

December 2, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
ly, that we felt the Canadian dollar should continue to float and that Canada had taken a great deal of the burden with respect to the adjustment of the United States dollar through the floating of the Canadian dollar, that we had taken our knocks so to speak, and the Canadian dollar should continue to float.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



UNITED STATES IMPORT SURCHARGE-PRECONDITIONS FOR REMOVING

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: have a supplementary question. In view of the fact the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. John Connally, at the conference in question apparently outlined some of the preconditions for removing the 10 per cent surcharge on imports into the United States, may I ask the Minister of Finance if he is now in a position to tell the House what those preconditions are and if he will be prepared to make a statement fairly soon as to Canada's reaction to those preconditions?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I think the preconditions have been indicated many times before, starting with the statement of the President of the United States on August 15 where he said there must be an adjustment on currency values vis-a-vis the United States dollar, there must be some adjustments on the burden sharing and some relief on trade barriers. We took the position from the beginning, and we continue to adopt the position, that all of the conditions mentioned by the President of the United States have been fulfilled by Canada long ago and that we should not be subject to the surcharge.



DISC PLAN-SUGGESTION THAT PRIME MINISTER EXPRESS CANADA'S OPPOSITION

Steve Eugene Paproski: I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. In light of the fact the Minister of Finance has agreed that the DISC plan may be of unparallelled danger to the Canadian economy, can the Acting Prime Minister assure the House that the Prime Minister will express Canada's opposition to this program and will urge President Nixon to not proceed with this measure?


Mitchell William Sharp: The
answer to that is yes, Mr. Speaker, but of course we have many times expressed this point of view to the United States administration.



LEVEL OF CANADIAN DOLLAR-ACCEPTANCE OF CANADIAN POSITION BY UNITED STATES

Robert Lorne Stanfield: wish to ask the Minister of Finance whether the view he has expressed with regard to the Canadian economy-


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Stand up straight.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Perhaps I should ask the hon. member for St. Boniface to stand up and leave, but that is not my privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I ask the minister whether he has put forward the thought that the Canadian dollar has already been adjusted to the extent of between 7 per cent and 8 per cent and this is all the Canadian people should be expected to take in the way of knocks? Has this view been accepted by the representatives of the United States in these discussions?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier many propositions are before the group of ministers. These propositions are being considered. Indeed, perhaps I might say the Canadian public has taken too many knocks in respect of the adjustment of the United States dollar.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Perhaps the minister did not understand my question. I asked him whether the representations he had made with regard to the relationship between the Canadian dollar and the United States dollar had been accepted. Have the views expressed by the minister been accepted by the United States authorities? That lends itself to a yes or no.


Edgar John Benson: They have been made quite clear to the United States authorities. As I said earlier there are many propositions before the group of ministers, the Group of Ten, and they are all being considered at the present time, but no decisions have been made.



FINANCE


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I have a question, for the Minister of Finance. Does the minister intend to make a statement on motions tomorrow on the result of the meetings of the Group of Ten and, if not, why not?


Edgar John Benson: I will consider this. I am not sure it is necessary. The meeting has been fully recorded in the press. I will consider the suggestion of the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary North.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, the question I was about to ask of the Minister of Finance has already been put to him.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs by way of clarification. With regard to the document he tabled a little while ago, to which he referred as an agreement, can the minister say if that is
December 2, 1971

what it is or is it a treaty which requires ratification by this Parliament before it comes into effect.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there were two documents I tabled. One is a treaty. I described it as an agreement, and it is so described, but it is a treaty and will require ratification. It is not the intention of the government, however, to present it before Parliament. The hon. member knows, having been a member of a previous administration, that it is only rarely such a document is brought before Parliament before ratification by the government.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I have a very serious question of privilege which I should like to raise, and which will take five or six minutes, rather than wait until the end of the question period. It relates to the secret treaty which has been made between Canada and Norway.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member cannot take up too much time on a question of privilege. If he has a question of privilege, I shall be delighted to receive it.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, on July 15, 1971 a secret document was exchanged between the government of Canada and the government of Norway which, if ratified, would permit Norway legally to pursue a course which has not been pursued since the 18th century. It would permit Norway to violate the territorial seas of Canada. Perhaps I might quote from article XII of the terms of the treaty.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Howard Lundrigan: Perhaps hon. members who are not interested in the sealing operation would pay a little attention to the sovereignty of the nation-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps hon. members would allow the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate to indicate what his question of privilege is.


John Howard Lundrigan: 
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should
indicate quickly what his question of privilege is. As the hon. member knows he has to indicate how his Parliamentary rights and privileges, as well those of the Parliament of Canada, have been affected by the tabling of this document or the signing of a treaty. I would like him to indicate his question of privilege.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, if I might be allowed one tenth the latitude allowed members such as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, then I will get around to my question of privilege. The treaty continues:
Inquiries of the Ministry
-in all the waters of Notre Dame Bay and of the Strait of Belle Isle-
Further, it indicates briefly that either party may terminate this agreement upon three years' notice in writing. However, no such notice shall be given by either party before December 31, 1975. It is signed for the government of Canada by Mr. Beasley and for the government of Norway-I cannot pronounce the name.
In view of the remark made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, it is clear that this matter, the secret treaty, would never have been made public but for some loyal people who were willing to offer a service to members such as the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hast-ings and others. Because of the fact the minister indicated this treaty will not be brought before Parliament, and in view of the urgency and the principle involved in the document concerning the conservation of the marine resources of Canada, an important aspect of the Canadian economy, I feel it is incumbent on the minister or on the Minister of Fisheries, who we have felt up to date has been fairly loyal to our cause, to have this document referred to the House of Commons for debate and further to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry. I would move such a motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot, during the question period, rise and propose a motion. The hon. member has taken the floor on a question of privilege and has stated his point clearly. The Chair has to rule concerning whether there is a question of privilege. Obviously, in my interpretation of parliamentary privilege, the parliamentary privilege of the hon. member has not been injuriously affected. The matter to which the hon. member referred may be very important, but I really suggest to him and to all hon. members, it can hardly be considered by way of a question of privilege. Perhaps some other way might be determined in which the situation could be considered by the House.


John Howard Lundrigan: I thank Your Honour for his statement. I give oral notice now, and shall give written notice tomorrow, of my intention to move a motion asking for unanimous consent of members of the House to refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member does not have to give verbal notice. He can give his notice tomorrow and I assure him that it will be considered, as it ought to be.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether this agreement has been ratified yet and if not when is ratification likely to take place.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the ordinary procedure in agreements of this kind is not to make them public until they come into force; that is, after ratification. In this particular case it became public because the Norwegian government, in the course of its procedures for ratification, released the text so I felt we were privileged to release it too. It would be our intention to ratify it immediately.


An hon. Member:: It is already ratified.

December 2, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of this treaty, several facets of which have been mentioned already, and in view of the fact that it will permit the annual seal massacre to take place until at least 1978, can the minister assure the House that an opportunity will be given to Parliament to discuss the terms of the treaty before this licence to further decimate our wildlife is made final?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am not sure the hon. member has in mind the same reasons the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate has in mind in raising the question. There might be an opportunity at some time to have a discussion of this matter such as during consideration of the estimates of the Department of Fisheries and my department. There will be plenty of opportunities. We have nothing to hide about this agreement.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of the matter and the very serious questions raised thereto by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate, and since the minister says he has nothing to hide, will the minister give a statement to the House tomorrow on this treaty?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly prepared to issue a statement on this subject.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member in a moment.
The hon. member for Gaspe.


James Aloysius McGrath: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker- [Translation]


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will have to wait a little. [English]
The hon. Member for St. John's East is rising on a point of order.


James Aloysius McGrath: May I say with respect, Mr. Speaker, that I directed my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who still has the responsibility of the House for international treaties. I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he would make a statement on this treaty, not the Minister of Fisheries.


Alexandre Cyr: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I will come back to the hon. member in a few moments.

I will return to the hon. member for St. John's East in a moment, but at this time we have a question of privilege.


John Howard Lundrigan: The minister has indicated to the House that the secret treaty of July 15 has not been ratified. I am not multilingual, but I have a document in my hand which refers to the accord between Canada and Norway and which is signed by the minister's own "expert" in external affairs, Mr. Allen Beasley. What does that mean?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Alexandre Cyr: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Considering the announcement made today by Steinberg's Company to the effect that their profits for the last quarter are higher that expected, does the minister intend to ask for an investigation in order to determine whether the enormous profits made in 1971 by that chain store have contributed to the increase of consumer prices? [English]


Hon.   Ron. Basford@Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs: I have not seen those reports, but I will have a look at them to see whether there is any correlation between the profit level and price levels. I would point out to the hon. member that there are many reasons for profit increases, including the efficiency of the operators of the firm, and that there is not necessarily any correlation between the two levels.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: My question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Can he tell the House if and when he will be tabling the white paper on immigration which I believe he promised the House last spring.


Otto Emil Lang: The discussion that has taken place in the House has generally been about the changes to the immigration law, with some comments about the reference in a previous Speech from the Throne to a policy paper. We have been working toward the final version of these matters. I cannot put a precise date as to the tabling or first reading, nor can I predict whether it will happen in the remaining short portion of this session or the next session.



NUMBER OF ALIENS IN CANADA ILLEGALLY-REQUEST FOR LEGISLATION TO REMEDY SITUATION

William Skoreyko: In view of the fact that there are some 7,500 cases pending before the
(Mr. Sharp.]
December 2, 1971

Immigration Appeal Board and allegedly 200,000 aliens living in Canada illegally, will the minister table a white paper on immigration as quickly as possible, if he has one, or bring in legislation to curb this kind of activity?


Otto Emil Lang: The proposed amendments to the immigration law will, of course, attempt to deal with the administrative difficulties which exist. I must say, however, that the suggestion of 200,000 illegal immigrants is complete guesswork.



REGULATIONS COVERING EMPLOYMENT OF ARTISTS- REQUEST FOR CHANGE

Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. He has indicated to the House that it might be some time before there are substantial changes made to the Immigration Act. I have been after the hon. gentleman for some time about changes in the regulations which would allow reasonable reciprocity in terms of temporary employment of artists, and men in other vocations, in Canada under the present regulations, but who are denied similar privileges-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member ask the question. It is a complicated question, if it is a question.


Mark Willson Rose: I was trying to lay the basis for my question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister now whether he can give the house some indication when he might use his authority to alter the regulations to prevent this kind of loophole which is causing considerable difficulty among Canadian creative people.


Otto Emil Lang: What the hon. member regards as loopholes some other people at least do not, but we are looking at the question of what we can do under the existing legislation, and there is certainly a possibility that we may attempt to proceed with changes in the regulations prior to the enactment of legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have just about reached the end of the question period. Perhaps we might try to have two or three more questions before the end. I doubt that we will have time for further supplementary questions on this subject.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The same answer has been coming from the minister for possibly two years. He has been looking at it for two years. When will he bring in the regulations?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



MANPOWER


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Would he tell the House how much use is made of the Local Initiatives Program? Are the municipalities taking advantage of the benefits offered by the government? Are many jobs created through those programs?


Mr. Speaker:: The minister may reply briefly to the question. Because it is so general in nature, it seems to me that it should be answered by way of a statement on motions. However, if the minister can reply to it quickly, we will go on to the next question.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, perhaps in due course I will be able to give a report which would be more satisfactory to the hon. member.



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Donald MacInnis: have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In 1967 Parliament passed legislation setting up the Cape Breton Development Corporation, section 18 of which dealt in part with former employees.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Don't read.


Donald MacInnis: I knew that somebody would fall for it some day. This is a blank piece of paper. It would be the hon. member for St. Boniface who would open his big mouth at the wrong time. This is a blank page.
Section 18 of that act dealt with a portion of the petition placed before Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that hon. members should give the hon. member an opportunity to ask his question and then give an opportunity to the minister to reply. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond has the floor.


Donald MacInnis: The subject matter of section 18 in the petition placed before Parliament was studied by the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. My question to the minister is as follows: Now that the Devco authorities have partially complied with section 18 A(ii) of the act, can the minister indicate whether the allowances which have been increased to $75 a month, less the Canada Pension Plan payments, for over 40 years of service will be retroactive to the date the legislation came into force or will they be paid on the basis of the dates of the individual retirements?


Jean Marchand: I suppose the hon. member is asking me for a legal opinion, and I cannot give it at this time.


Donald MacInnis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I take strong exception to the minister stating that I am asking for a legal opinion from him or, for that matter, from anybody on the government side. He and I know it is
10106

December 2, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
against the rules of the House to ask for a legal opinion. All I am asking the minister is whether section 18 A(ii) of the act will be complied with. Will the moneys be paid as of the date when the act came into force or will they be paid on the basis of the date of the individual's retirement?


Jean Marchand: May I take the question as notice and answer it later on.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a supplementary question? We have just about reached the end of the question period. The hon. member may ask a supplementary question.


Donald MacInnis: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, hon. members opposite are hollering and screaming to the effect that I want a legal opinion. I have been perfectly satisfied-in fact, more than satisfied-with the findings of the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee which was chaired by an hon. member of the party opposite and manned by 12 members of that party. All I ask of the minister as a supplementary question is: After looking at this legislation, will he instruct Devco to assure the dependants of former miners of their rightful payments under the legislation?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I just said that I am taking the question as notice.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Greenwood. I will try to recognize another hon. member before the end of the question period.



IMMIGRATION


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It arises out of previous questions when there was some suggestion about introducing a new white paper on immigration. Has the minister any plans to introduce legislation to carry out the proposals that appeared in the government's white paper of 1966?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, in reviewing the possible amendments to the Immigration Appeal Board Act, we have also been taking into consideration changes that might be made in the Immigration Act, some of which might deal with matters raised in the white paper to which the hon. member refers.



EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET-GOVERNMENT EFFORTS TO MAINTAIN AGRICULTURAL EXPORTS

Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indus-

try, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that the United States, New Zealand and Australia are making strenuous efforts to maintain agricultural exports, particularly grain, to European Common Market countries, what steps is Canada taking to protect its grain export interest in this area?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I know the United States is trying to reach agreement with the European Economic Community on grains, and if such agreement is reached we will of course ask to be part of it.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Steve Eugene Paproski: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I note there are a number of points of order and questions of privilege that hon. members wish to raise. I will recognize the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate first on a question of privilege.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I raised a question with regard to the tabling of a sealing treaty between Norway and Canada, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs agreed to table it. After the time for motions had passed today I again raised the matter and the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated he would table it later today. Tonight, after making a response to a question, he did table the document. I then rose and asked for the unanimous consent of the House- which might or might not have been in order-so that I or somebody else on this side could respond to the document which was tabled. We were denied that privilege. I have in my hand a copy of a press release which was issued on December 2-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to inform the hon. member that the rules of the House apply to him also. I have twice ruled that he has no question of privilege. He puts the Chair in a very difficult position. I would invite him to say immediately what his question of privilege is, and then allow me to make a ruling on it.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, there is a rule in the House of Commons which allows ministers to make statements on motions and spokesmen for opposition parties to respond to them. I have in my hand what is in fact a statement made outside the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Howard Lundrigan: The statement was made this very day after the minister came into the House. Before that it was presented to the press. It is a fairly succinct statement which gives the details of the document which was tabled. Because the minister, outside the House, presented this fairly detailed statement to the media of the country, he has denied the right of members of this party to make representations on behalf of the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, he has not only denied the right of hon. members here but has denied that right to every Canadian on the east coast of Canada-and I only hope that all Canadians who are interested in marine
December 2, 1971

resources will speak out. I do not know what Standing Order I can quote in order to justify that I have a question of privilege, but if the Standing Order which enables ministers of the Crown to make statements on motions is to be abused by presenting this kind of statement outside the House, thus circumventing our rights, we might as well eliminate the procedure for statements on motions and enable hon. members when important documents are subreptitiously brought before the House-


Mr. Mcllraith:: Explain.


John Howard Lundrigan: -to present the points of view, briefly and succinctly, of Canadians who are affected. The behaviour of this minister, which is reflected throughout the whole cabinet, is part of a process to downgrade Parliament and is preventing us from presenting the views of the people whom we represent.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Minister of National Health and Welfare was not in his seat during the question period. He has just arrived in the chamber. He will not be here tomorrow, and I would like to pose a question to him which is very urgent because there is a deadline of December 8-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member could do this with unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. I have to draw to the attention of hon. members that I extended the question period by a few minutes to take into account the fact that we had a number of points of order and of privilege. As I say, I tried to take this into account by extending the question period. That period of our activities ended 15 minutes ago, and I think this has been a rather generous extension.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will ask-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will have noticed that I asked whether there was unanimous consent to prolong the question period, and there was not unanimity.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Then I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I am not going to say that the roster system has gone to hell; but this is a very important matter. There is a deadline so far as having a team in the 1972 Olympics. That deadline closes on December 8. There is still a possibility for us to enter the 1972 Olympics with a national team. All I want to do is ask the minister a question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member-


Steve Eugene Paproski: The hon. member for Northwest Territories said no.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. My impression is that the hon. member has pleaded his case with eloquence. If there is agreement to extend the question period, the hon. member might be allowed to put his question.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please, I regret there is not consent.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please. The Chair is not getting assistance from either side of the House. I am trying to do a job on behalf of members of the House. If members think the House should not be sitting, there are provisions under the Standing Orders which would allow the Chair to take into account the fact that there is not the order that there should be in the House. The hon. member for Hamilton West.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member for Northwest Territories did not notice that the Minister of National Health and Welfare had given his consent with respect to answering the question. I am sure that if the hon. member had noticed this, no objection would have been raised. As the Minister of National Health and Welfare wishes to allow this very important question, I would hope that agreement will come from the other side of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that we should not spend the rest of the evening trying to ascertain whether a question can or cannot be asked. The hon. member for St. John's East.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During the question period I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he would make a statement on a treaty, the contents of which he tabled tonight. The Secretary of State for External Affairs permitted the Minister of Fisheries to reply to the question. The Minister of Fisheries circumvented the rules of the House by saying yes, he would issue a statement. Coincidentally with the minister saying that, a statement was issued and circulated to members of the House and to the press.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I object to this circumvention of the rules and practices of the House. It is incumbent upon the Secretary of State for External Affairs to make a statement in the House on this very important treaty, thereby enabling all hon. members to respond to his statement. I object to the procedure that has been followed tonight. The rules have been circumvented by the Minister of Fisheries in issuing this statement to the press before a statement was made to the House.


Mitchell William Sharp: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I draw the attention of the House to Hansard, page 10067, where there is recorded a question put to me by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate. He asked: "Will the minister table that document and when?" I complied with the request of the hon. gentleman.


An hon. Member:: Why are you afraid to make a statement on this?
24725-1H

December 2, 1971
Income Tax Act


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Donald MacInnis: The Secretary of State for External Affairs-and a check of the "blues" will bear me out-this afternoon in answer to the hon. member for Gander-Twil-lingate said that later today, or some time during the day, he would be prepared to revert to motions to make such a statement.


Some hon. Members:: No, no!


Donald MacInnis: Tonight the minister is the very person who is refusing-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This point has been made on a number of occasions over a period of 30 minutes of the time of the House.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I should like to know why the hon. member for Northwest Territories refuses to let me speak about our national game and about entering a team into the 1972 Olympics. This is my question of privilege.


J. Michael Forrestall: I want to know, too.


An hon. Member:: He is against it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Northwest Territories rises on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Orange:: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member across the way could say something intelligent, I would try-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that we are sinking lower and lower. I really do not think we should continue in this vein. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, December 1, consideration in committee of Bill C-259, to amend the Income Tax Act and to make certain provisions and alterations in the statute law related to or consequential upon amendments to that act-Mr. Benson-Mr. Honey in the chair.
The Chairman:: It is my understanding that the committee will now resume consideration of sections 21, 35, 46 to 48 inclusive, 59, 64 to 66 inclusive, 87 and 124 dealing with mining and petroleum.
On clause 1-section 21: Cost of borrowed money.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, before I speak on the resource industries so far as the tax bill is concerned I have a question for the parliamentary secretary. I know he is as interested as I am in the development of our resource industries, particularly because he comes from
[Mr. Sharp.J
Alberta. Would he take a few moments this evening to compare the depletion changes in the new bill and what they do to the former act having regard to the depletion allowances in the United States?
I ask this question in all seriousness because I have in my hand the reasons for the decision of the National Energy Board. At page 59 appears the information that the reserves of proven resources of natural gas in Canada-and that means western Canada-are 60.3 trillion cubic feet. Ten years ago, when the Borden commission made its report, the proven resources of natural gas were approximately 23 trillion cubic feet.
The demand in Canada is less than the supply asked for by the United States at the present time, which is approximately 2.7 trillion cubic feet. The decision to turn down those licences by the board is such that there is concern about Canada's needs in the domestic and industrial fields for the foreseeable future. They do not think we have enough proven resources. I come back to the question. The National Energy Board seems to have ignored- Mr. Chairman, if the Secretary of State wants to hold a meeting on B and B, why doesn't he go outside the chamber to do it?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: That's a good idea.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. I have a great deal of sympathy for the hon. member who has the floor. There is in my opinion, far too much discussion in the committee. If hon. members have other things to do than in the committee, they should do it behind the curtains.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: This bill is so complex that nobody understands it. I am about to put a few questions to the parliamentary secretary to find out what the bill is really about-but these ministers brought in closure this afternoon and all they do is hold council meetings about their own matters.
I will come back to the subject matter. In light of the fact that the National Energy Board did not appear to take into consideration the reserves that will be determined by future exploration, and that it has been suggested by the resource industry that the bill seems to be killing exploration and that two-thirds of the industry and operators in Alberta are now idle because of the decision of the National Energy Board, let me ask the parliamentary secretary to summarize the new depletion allowance provisions in the tax bill. Will he compare them with the previous provisions and tell us what difference they will make to the industry, and compare them with depletion allowances in effect in the United States?


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I will be delighted to comply with the hon. member's request in all respects except one. I am not prepared, without notice, to compare the system in Canada with that existing in the United States. This is Canadian tax law and I am not entirely clear as to the relevance that United States tax law would have in this kind of situation. I will certainly get the information for the hon. member, if he thinks that is desirable. I do not have it in front of me.
December 2, 1971

I believe the hon. member was speaking of section 65. It continues the provisions in the present act which give authority for the deduction of depletion allowances for mining and oil properties, as determined under the regulations. The present regulations provide for a depletion allowance of 33-1/3 per cent of the profits derived from the operation of a mine or oil well. This does not apply to gold mines, which receive an allowance of 40 per cent of profits of $4 an ounce, whichever is the greater, or to coal mines, which receive an allowance of 10 cents per ton.
Non-operators who receive royalties or rentals are entitled to an allowance of 15 per cent of the gross rent. There will be no changes in the amounts of depletion which may be charged under that section until 1977. Commencing in that year, depletion allowances will have to be earned. As the earned depletion system matures, allowances will tend to be related to expenditures on exploration and development activity rather than to profits. I am sure the hon. member will, on reflection, agree that in view of the absence of any major discovery in the southern tier of Canada since 1966, it is most desirable for further exploration to be encouraged and stimulated and that we are taking a positive step in that direction by tying depletion allowances to expenditures and development costs rather than to profits, which benefit principally the established and producing oil companies rather than those searching for new resources.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, can the parliamentary secretary tell us why there will be no changes until 1977, so that we may see the full picture?


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We have here a transitional seven-year period in which companies which have accumulated depletion but not earned the profits against which to offset it can use up the depletion they have already accumulated. Actually, the period would be seven years because the earned depletion provisions date back to the date of the white paper. That is a seven-year period in which to use up depletion that they have already accumulated against future profits. Since during the period dating from the white paper the eligible expenditure provisions for earned depletion will be available to them during this transitional period, they will have basically the benefit of both systems.
This is a transitional provision and has been brought in to try to avoid as much as possible and in a practical way any retroactive impact on companies which in good faith have spent money in the past on exploration and development, but which have not realized the profits which are necessary if they are to benefit from the depletion allowances they are entitled to.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I thank the parliamentary secretary. Now we have some basis on which to talk. May I ask another question. Some leading national chartered accountants have suggested that the bill makes only basic changes in the provisions affecting the resource industries and that most of the changes will result by order in council. They say that letters have been written to the industry setting out, basically, what those orders in council will contain. Is that correct?


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: That is correct, Mr. Chairman. As in the present act, the depletion allowances system is merely and
Income tax Act
basically authorized by the act. The detailed implementation of it is to be found in the regulations. It is proposed to continue that system in the near future.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his courtesy. May I now turn to something else. There is at present a lack of confidence that is evident in the industry. This stems partly from the fact that much of the law in this area is unwritten law, so to speak, since it will be enforced through regulations.
The parliamentary secretary has said that the present automatic depletion provisions for operators and nonoperators, including recipients of royalties, are to be continued until 1976 or 1977. He mentioned special provisions relating to gold mines and coal mines. We are told that taxpayers engaged in this area will be required to spend $3 on exploration and development in order to earn $1 of depletion allowance. Royalty income will be classified as production income and, consequently, will be eligible for the earned depletion allowance. Let me pause there. I had good reason for asking about the United States system. As my good friend opposite will understand, and as many experts in the resource industries have said, the petroleum industry and allied industries need to operate with large pools of capital. These industries work with risk capital because drilling wells or digging for mines is a risky undertaking. Consequently, and you cannot escape this; large international concerns are engaged in this field.
Home Oil, a Canadian company, has undertaken much development in the last few years outside Canada, in the North Sea, up in the Arctic and in Alaska under leases from the United States. If these companies are to function properly, they must function in the right kind of international atmosphere. The point I want to drive home is this. I am not being critical of the parliamentary secretary when I say that this bill is as thick as the bible. There is no doubt about it. It contains as many words, probably, as the bible. I have not counted the words in either.


An hon. Member:: It weighs more.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, it weighs a great deal. Much depends on how big is the bible that you are comparing. If our companies are to compete with American companies, British companies, French companies and others that are engaged in exploration and development, our tax laws and depletion allowances must be as favourable as the tax laws and depletion allowances made available by other countries. That is my first point. It seems obvious that this is not the case.
May I refer again to the National Energy Board's decision recently handed down. Five companies came before the National Energy Board, Mr. Chairman, to apply for permission to export natural gas. They wanted to export approximately 2.7 trillion cubic feet. Those export licenses were turned down by the board. You will find part of that decision on page 6-8 of the National Energy Board's reasons for decision. The board said that having analysed the proven reserves of natural gas, they had come to the conclusion that we did not have enough proven reserves to permit export and at the same time satisfy Canadian needs for domestic and industrial use in the foreseeable future.

December 2, 1971
Income Tax Act
Let us see what Canada's needs will be. It is estimated that in 1971 we will need 1,049 million cubic feet of natural gas for our own use. For 1972 the estimate rises by about 200 million cubic feet to 1,278 million cubic feet. In 1973 we shall need 1,416 cubic feet. In 1974 we shall need 1,522 million cubic feet, and in 1975-according to figures estimated by the National Energy Board-we shall need 1,632 million cubic feet. All those figures-I mention this to help Hansard-will be found at page 4-12 of the National Energy Board's reasons for decision.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Twenty-five years from now.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am talking about where the figures come from, and I am coming to that. The member for Northwest Territories has put his finger on the very point I am about to make. In order to come to a conclusion as to what we may need in the foreseeable future, the National Energy Board has arrived at a formula whereby one takes the fourth year times 25. So the fourth year from 1971 would be 1973 or 1974, depending on whether it was estimated from 1970 or 1971, and multiply that by 25. And they add that we have 25 years of proven reserves at the present time.
If you multiply the fourth year, which is one trillion, five hundred million cubic feet, more or less, by 25-that is the formula which is used-they then say that when you look at the proven reserves we have at the present they will amount to 60 trillion cubic feet. So when they say we are short about one-fifth of some million cubic feet for 25 years of projection, I say that they have failed. This is my opinion, one which I will put before the committee tomorrow.
I want to ask the National Energy Board some questions. In my opinion they have failed to take into consideration what will happen in the next 25 years of exploration. They have failed to take into consideration the exploration in the Arctic. What they have done is to say that we have 60 trillion cubic feet of gas; we will need all that in 25 years, and forget about any more exploration: we are not going to allow these licences. Why have they done this, Mr. Chairman? I cannot read the minds of the National Energy Board and I am not going to try.
The second point I wish to make, and it is the most important point, is that under the tax structure proposed, the national chartered accountants of Canada, no matter what firm you want to choose, have done research into the Canadian tax reform review-and I have read several of their studies. All of them have come to the conclusion, as have the financial papers of Canada, that the present tax structure is such that it will discourage exploration. Having come to that conclusion, the chartered accountants and the financial press of this country have led me to ask myself this question: Are their deductions correct? I say, Mr. Chairman, they must be correct, because today, for the first time, in Alberta two-thirds of all the drilling companies lay silent and idle while men are out of work and revenue is ceasing to pour into the provincial and federal revenue departments.
There must be some reason for this when we have 60 trillion cubic feet of proven reserves of natural gas and the National Energy Board is not predicting anything for

future exploration. I say, therefore, that this tax law will kill or stymie the development and exploration of energy resources in Canada. If, on the other hand, this government had brought forward a tax structure giving the country a tax climate in which we would have encouraged exploration and development, not only in Alberta but in the Arctic and wherever else it can be carried on, then the National Energy Board could have projected that these reserves would be increased and that we could now export natural gas to the United States.
The point I make is this. Since the government of the right hon. member for Prince Albert set up the board, and since after six months of hard work and accounting they came to the conclusion that we had 23 trillion cubic feet of gas in ten years-I want the committee to pay attention to this, Mr. Chairman-in ten years we explored in western Canada and produced 40 trillion cubic feet of gas, twice as much as we knew we had in the sixties. That is why I say that when people talk about Leduc, they are 20 years too late, because Leduc was found in the early forties.
If we had the right atmosphere in the tax structure, the men and women who are now out of work in Canada could have jobs, not only in the drilling rigs but in the tertiary industries. For the export of natural gas you must have pipelines. Pipelines demand steel. The steel industry provides jobs in the east. Jobs in the east build pipelines, and pipelines carry natural gas across the country.
The next question I think the government would consider, instead of killing off development and exploration in this country, is to make sure that we have an adequate transportation system. There is no reason why the province of Alberta should have to sit on its energy resources and wait for this government to create either an atmosphere or motivate a group, through private enterprise or themselves, to provide pipelines to carry the natural gas from the sources which we talk about. What we have reached now, Mr. Chairman, is stagnation. We have now, as the National Energy Board admits, 60 trillion cubic feet of gas. Even taking their formula-which is a small "1" liberal formula of 25 years-if we never found another cubic foot of natural gas we have enough for Canada's use for 25 years.
But this government in its despondency, and even the National Energy Board, says they may not find or explore any more energy in this country. We heard before the committee yesterday that in the United States half its energy is already nuclear and that in another 25 years 90 per cent of the energy will be nuclear. Here we have a great resource in western Canada being stagnated. I am glad to see that the minister of industry is here, because he is responsible for pouring out money to try to stimulate the economy.
With vision, Mr. Chairman, from this source alone it means a billion and a half dollars to Canada every year. This is big business to everybody and it means

I say this to hon. members to my left who oppose the export of natural gas-that if we create a market we will create the industries in eastern Canada, British Columbia and the Prairies. This in turn will give thousands of jobs to Canadians. The tertiary industries which would result from the gas and petroleum industry are worth about $400 million or $500 million dollars right now to Ontario, and $400 million or $500 million to Ontario means a lot of jobs,
December 2, 1971

if you computerize it right down the line from the little man in the steel factory to the man who is helping to ship the pipe west to build the pipelines. That is what I am talking about when I talk about the resource industry. That is why I am discussing the very serious social question of resources tonight in an atmosphere where it is very difficult to get answers.
This is what the parliamentary secretary has said on this subject, Mr. Chairman-and this is the last point I wish to make. First of all, he has said that most of the law will be written by regulations. He should read the life story of Mackenzie King if he wants to be a great Liberal. Mackenzie King said, "You should know the law as you sit; you should know the law as you run; you should know the law as you walk". Mr. Chairman, we don't even know what the law will be until the bill is passed and some cabinet minister sits down and creates regulations and a climate for industry in western Canada. It will be a law which Parliament can never be allowed to debate. Nor will Parliament be able to discuss the regulations which flow from this socialist bible.
This bill is a socialist document. Its regulations will crush and stagnate the economy. It is a bill that is not being debated in a House where 90 per cent of its members do not understand its significance. This is why it is so important that the bill be divided. We do not even know what the law is going to be that affects one of the great resources of western Canada. Neither do we know, nor have we bothered to find out in the haste of the government to push the bill through, what the law on depletion is in the United States, Great Britain or France.
The parliamentary secretary says that does not matter, that this is Canada and we are making laws for Canadians. He says it does not matter whether the United States out-depletes us, whether France out-depletes us, whether Great Britain out-depletes us or whether Japan out-depletes us. The government is using the cod liver oil treatment. They pour the oil into our mouths and we have to like it or lump it. That is what closure is all about, and this is happening to Canada. Parliament is being gagged. We do not know what is the law and we cannot find out what it is. Even the Canadian Bar Association and groups of chartered accountants say this bill is so complex that they cannot understand it.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. The hon. member may ask a question if the hon. member who has the floor agrees.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I wish to be polite and courteous to the hon. member, but whenever he has interrupted others on this side who have spoken thus far he has always tried to play politics. If the hon. member wants to ask me a question with regard to something I have said, then I will answer him. If he has another of his nonsensical, political questions that has no relation to anything, then I will not answer him.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the hon. member's point and I will take care to stick to it because he has made a very good point. In view of the fact that time is so
Income Tax Act
limited and that gas seems to be in limited supply, is it possible to get on to the subject matter of this bill at this time?


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. The Chair has listened throughout the debate in committee of the whole fairly carefully. The committee must remember that we are discussing a group of sections, and hon. members will recall that it has been the practice in committee to let discussion range within the group under discussion. With respect, I think the hon. member is relevant and I ask him to continue his remarks.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In view of your remarks I shall ignore the question. Having expected that type of question I am not disappointed, and when one is not disappointed one cannot help but feel happy.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: It is exhilarating.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, it is exhilarating. A glance at the new tax amendments and regulations within Bill C-259 raises the question-what are these measures going to achieve in the energy sector of the economy? I say that they will achieve stagnation. There will be no more exploration, particularly in time of demand. According to the formula used by the National Energy Board, there is a demand for accelerated exploration and a need to double our reserves of energy. This formula is costing western Canada $1.5 billion, which is a lot of money.
One conclusion is obvious: the proposed tax amendments will severely restrict, and are presently restricting, our oil and gas industries at a time when every attempt must be made to keep them healthy and expanding and to maintain an expanding economy. To carry this conclusion further, will these proposed tax changes be the foundation upon which to construct a comprehensive energy policy to meet the energy requirements not only of this nation but of the export market? Predictions for the remainder of this decade suggest that the demand for mineral and energy resources will escalate at an unprecedented rate. By 1980 the United States, it is suggested, will consume-as I pointed out the other night-over 80 per cent of the world's production of mineral and energy resources. Canada, as a result of its proximity and close affiliation to United States markets, must formulate a Canadian resource policy. Part of that policy is a sound tax law in order to stimulate the growth of corporations, a growth that will bring fuller employment of labour.
Although a continental energy policy has been proposed, no one really understands it. This may be a side issue, but anyone who links the export of water to natural gas or crude petroleum would be mistaken. I would be the first to oppose such a relationship. We are living in the age of petroleum resources. There is a time to use these resources, as there was a time to use energy in the form of coal. But we are now moving into a new era, the nuclear age. I shall have something further to say on'other sections, but on that tone I draw my remarks to a conclusion since the Chairman has been very gracious in allowing me a few extra minutes.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, since the hon. member was speaking on section 65 and on depletion allowances, I wonder whether he would expand on the rationale of his

December 2, 1971
Income Tax Act
thesis regarding the change in the system of depletion allowances which he related directly to exploration and development and to giving resource companies an opportunity to earn exactly the same depletion that they can under the present system, but contingent upon their carrying out exploration and development programs. How can this possibly serve as a disincentive to exploration, as he indicates the present provisions will?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I answered that in my speech, Mr. Chairman. I said we must have a comparable depletion allowance to the United States. As my hon. friend appreciates, up until now much of our development has been financed by foreign capital. Foreign capital has come to this country because depletion reserves and allowances were built up in the United States at a greater rate pro rata than in Canada. As a result, this has encouraged investment dollars from the U.S. since these dollars are tax free here.
This is why I said that our depletion and tax laws must be comparable. I would say they must be even more attractive than those of the United States if we are to have exploration and development. That is why I asked the parliamentary secretary, before I commenced my remarks, about the depletion law in the United States. He replied he would bring the information to the committee and let me know. I think I have a pretty good idea what it is, but I should like to hear it from the government.


Mr. Ritchie:: Mr. Chairman, discussion on the tax bill and the matter of resources brings up the question of the attitude the government must take in regard to how much tax a resource industry should pay. In my opinion this is largely a political question. There has been widespread feeling among Canadians that through depletion allowances and other incentives the oil companies have been able to make unusually large gains and to pay much less tax then should be the case. From a personal point of view may I say I remember my family investing $1,000 in the oil industry of Alberta before the war, some time during the 1930s, not one cent of which they saw again. So it is not the case that such investment is always profitable.
I think that a significant answer to this problem was given to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, in reply to the chairman, the hon. member for Gatineau, by officials of Shell Oil appearing before the white paper committee. I quote:


Russell Clayton Honey: Depletion, gentlemen, is an incentive. How will you determine whether a particular incentive is overgenerous? Why 33j per cent? Would not 30 per cent, 25 per cent, 20 per cent, accomplish the same development in Canada?


Mr.   Bridges@: Mr. Chairman, this question came up again earlier today in a slightly different context. How do you judge what is the right level of an incentive for an industry? I think the problem is a very complicated one.
May I go back a little and talk about the history of oil in the North American continent? Perhaps it was not stressed sufficiently this morning that there have only been two really big discoveries of oil in the whole North American continent: one was East Texas and the other is now Prudhoe Bay. The rest of the oil in this continent is in thousands and thousands of small accumulations, all of which cost a great deal in exploration money to find.
If this situation were to change-let us suppose that we suddenly could expect that, in the new frontier regions of Canada, we are

going to find half a dozen fields of the size of Kuwait or Abqaiq, or some other fields like these enormous fields in the Middle East-I will tell you quite frankly, right now, we would need no incentive whatsover. The chance of this happening is just infinitesimal we really believe.
Let us be frank right here. The United States and Canada are the only two countries in the world where you present a depletion allowance. The reason is, just as I have explained, because the majority of the oil in North America is contained in an enormous number of small accumulations which are hard and costly to find, costly to develop and of course, as we move closer to these frontier regions, that much harder to bring ashore or to some location where they can be shipped either by pipe line or by tanker to a consuming area.
And here we come to the really difficult question: What is the right kind of incentive? Truthfully, of course, one can only answer that after all the oil of Canada has been discovered. One can, in retrospect, say what was the right level to encourage this development. Right now, we can only say that these big fields, even East Texas and Prudhoe Bay, are still small compared with fields of the size of Kuwait and Abqaiq in the Middle East. Certainly, the Prudhoe Bay field is in a remote location.
We hope there are some more of this size of field in our Canadian frontier areas, but we cannot count on it. We believe it will be wrong for the government to feel that it is certain that there are going to be half a dozen of these fields around just waiting for somebody to find.
We believe this is unrealistic; the chances are that again we are going to find more oil, but again it is going to be of the normal type of North American accumulation, which is relatively small, difficult and costly to find, and, of course, the more remote the area, the move difficult to bring to a market. Therefore, we feel an incentive is required.
I think this comment by the people of the oil industry is very valid and to the point. We must give incentives to our oil industry or have the oil stay in the ground until such time as world prices rise and supplies of oil, particularly in the Middle East, become depleted so that our oil pools will be able to be brought into production. Of course, all this raises the valid important consideration of what are our own needs in Canada of oil and gas. At what price should it be sold and what incentives, if any, should we offer for the exploration of oil and gas? The action of the national Energy Board last Friday in banning the sale of gas exports to the United States is largely of political significance. It certainly is an example, as in the tax bill, where the government is changing the rules in the middle of the game to its own advantage.
It has certainly decided that the gas producers, especially of Alberta, shall take a very reduced price for their gas so that consumers in central Canada will benefit. In other words, it is obvious that at this time the National Energy Board has made a purely political decision and it has subverted the interests of western Canada for the interests of central Canada. The amount of gas rejected by the National Energy Board was, of course, insignificant in relation to our long-term needs. It was made in face of the decision of Alberta's energy resources conservation board that there was natural gas in the province surplus to present and future needs of its citizens. The National Energy Board said there was no surplus available for export.
Mr. Lougheed, the Premier of Alberta, asked the federal cabinet to request the National Energy Board to reconsider its decision, and-
-in particular the extreme weighting given eastern Canadian requirements.
December 2, 1971

Income Tax Act
Alternatively, if the National Energy Board is not prepared to reconsider its decision, then the federal cabinet should take the necessary action to assure the requirements in eastern Canada as set forth in the decision are immediately covered by purchase contracts.
The Premier said this would significantly assist the current situation of locked-in natural gas reserves in Alberta. This energy decision of the federal government, taken under the guise of the National Energy Board, has been widely haled as an example of Canadianism. In fact, it is mainly beneficial to eastern Canadians who do not want to pay more for their gas, and in the immediate future this might well be so.
Since last Friday-which might well be a milestone in the natural gas industry-as reported in the Globe and Mail of November 23, the gas industry officials are assessing the immediate and long-term consequences. The gas industry will no longer have a hope of supplying a premium fuel to a high-priced, energy-short market. The immediate possible developments are as follows. There may be a substantial drop in U.S. risk capital that has poured over the border in vast amounts in the past two years in the hope of triggering new finds and exporting the gas. Higher domestic gas prices, especially in the Ontario market that now accounts for 41 per cent of all gas sales from western producers, could result.
A dampening could occur in U.S. enthusiasm for northern exploration, financed largely in the hope of exporting the gas that might materialize, and there may be a reassessment of U.S. plans for a pipeline to move Arctic fuel to southern markets. It has been agreed that gas producing facilities of major oil companies will find foreign money and even domestic capital will be tighter and will be dispensed much more carefully in the absence of reasonable expectations that gas it helped to find can be removed.
One company which has spent $75 million since 1969 is quite undecided as to its future. In all, about $100 million from the United States has gone to Alberta since 1969. Furthermore, similar amounts of money being spent in the Arctic create similar development problems in the Northwest Territories. Almost certainly United States capital will not be allowed to export gas found in the Territory in the future. I think the action of the National Energy Board will create a void in the investment in the natural gas industry which Canadians presusmably think they wish to fill and they will have to call on their own financial resources.
There have been increased demands for domestic price increases and producers have claimed lately that they are subsidizing eastern customers. What about the obvious differences of opinion between the Alberta energy conservation board and the National Energy Board? It certainly seems quite likely that the National Energy Board's decision was highly political. The action of the National Energy Board, which obviously could not have been taken without the agreement of the government, triggers a new and important phase in Canadian-American relations. It has certainly served notice that the Canadian government is willing to change rules at any time it suits them and with no apparent policy to compensate for this change.
It perhaps is the general feeling that Canada has natural gas fuel and that in some way this gives Canada an advantage over its competitors if the gas is not exported. This action might be held by Canada, first as a great victory for Canadian nationalism-but everyone knows that in this modern world we are significantly interdependent. Certainly, the United States against whom the National Energy Board's decision was made has great economic power in the world. If the United States had to exist without Canadian natural gas, I think no doubt it would do so. The Japanese have proved over and over again that people who are resourceful and hardworking, with good investment policies and industrial policies, can survive with almost no natural resources of any kind.
The action of the National Energy Board is precipitate and hasty. If we need to curtail the export of natural gas or prevent it altogether, certainly this is our privilege; but I think that the government should give due warning of their action and have some public discussion, particularly in view of the fact that responsible boards such as the Alberta conservation energy board had sanctioned the export of gas.
Now that the government has indicated that there is little chance of natural gas being exported in the future- and I am sure this government will move the oil in some way-our oil resources will, obviously, largely have to be developed by our own capital. For various reasons capital in Montreal and Toronto has never been interested in western oils in great quantity. There is no indication that they are interested today. The government, in the present tax legislation, has seriously reduced the tax incentives for Canadians to invest in a high risk venture. Bill C-259 further reduces the incentive to invest in high risk ventures such as petroleum and mining.
The action of the National Energy Board has had significant impact on the exploration for oil and gas in this country and it complements what the tax bill is doing. It points to a policy that indicates the exploitation of our renewable resources should not be carried out. It certainly points to the necessity of manufacturing being necessary to carry a much greater burden of international prosperity than it has so far shown itself capable of doing. So I think Bill C-259, along with the action of the National Energy Board, has so changed the climate that we will lose investment in the natural gas and oil industry in Canada at a time when so many jobs are needed. This will not be a good thing for Canada.


Mr. Otto:: Mr. Chairman, I listened to the arguments of the last two speakers and I wonder if they would review their thinking on the suggestions they have put forward. If I understood correctly what they said, there is a United States input and a United States emphasis in respect of exploration and development of the petroleum and mining industries in Canada. They say that this bill should be the instrument by which we should compete this United States emphasis. In other words, if I understood them correctly, they are saying that if we raise the depletion allowance and we lower the income tax, more Canadians would invest in our petroleum, gas, and so on.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Good boy!
10114

December 2, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Steven Otto: Mr. Chairman, let me go a step further. If we did this, would not the United States then compete with us by lowering their income tax and increasing their depletion allowance? Indeed, it would be to their advantage to do so, because Americans who come here to explore and develop think it is very unfair that we should have any energy board to prevent them from taking out the gas and oil. How can we compete?
If we should lower our income tax and increase the depletion allowance and the United States should go still further, how far can we go? We cannot compete against a country as vast as the United States, with the breaks it can give to its industry. To say we should compete by raising the depletion allowance does not make sense. We do not have that kind of money and therefore cannot compete with the United States. I agree that we should induce Canadians to develop their own resources, but certainly not by increasing the depletion allowance or through this bill, because it cannot be done in that way.
If hon. gentlemen opposite can tell this House how we could possibly compete with them, I would be ready and willing to listen; but so far the only thing I have heard is that we should get into competition with the United States. We would not win in such a competition. Therefore, I do not think the arguments we have heard would change the situation one iota. With respect, I suggest this argument does not apply to this bill and that the amendment they are asking for will not do the job.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, it is just about ten o'clock. I would have liked-and I shall do so tomorrow- to answer a question put to me by the parliamentary secretary in respect of some of the recommendations of the Senate committee. I am sure my good friends across the way would like to hear a compliment from me, because I do not always pay them compliments. I congratulate them on their wonderful attendance here tonight.


James Aloysius McGrath: It is edifying.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is edifying. I think it is now ten o'clock.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. Is it agreed that the Chair call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, the question which concerned me the other day was that I thought,-and I believe some of my colleagues also thought-,that the spending program for Colonel

Bourne's special advisory force to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Solicitor General somehow slipped through the tight net we usually put on the spending program of the government. I believe this has happened since July of this year, and therefore I had the feeling that this matter should be pursued in the House and, more particularly, at this late hour when as we know the galleries are filled and people are just bursting to get the information which can be passed along by the Solicitor General, myself or anybody else.
The question I asked dealt with this question and arose out of the fact that section 54 of the British North America Act provides:
It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address, or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to that House by message of the Governor General in the session in which such vote, resolution, address, or bill is proposed.
It is granted that that view was set forth in our constitution, that the constitution is sacrosanct and should not be amended without at least a great deal of consideration and that this is the law under which we operate. Then I and a number of my colleagues asked ourselves why Colonel Robin Bourne and his advisory force to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have suddenly crept into the Canadian scene. I do not think we have had a satisfactory answer to that as yet, hence my temerity in trying to raise the question again tonight.
We have asked questions both inside and outside the House of Commons and perhaps I can put it here, without referring to the debate in the House, in simple language. I think that when you deal with the security of the country, when you deal with people who, as the Solicitor General (Mr. Goyer) advised us earlier, give advice to the RCMP on security or on other matters-when, in short, you deal with anything that has to do with the RCMP as the force that protects most of us in Canada-you must have a pretty good reason for advocating a change from the traditional practice.
What shook most of us in the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, and indeed those who were considering the security of the country, was that we voted on something and now we find-this can be proven by the answer which the Solicitor General gave me the other day which had nothing to do with the question I raised-that we have never had a real explanation of why this force was set up in the first place. It turns out that a year or more could pass in the affairs of this Parliament with regard to the spending program of the RCMP and nobody will be coming before us, including the Solicitor General, to account for the fact that there has been a great departure from ordinary practice in the administration of his department.
I see the hon. gentleman is leaving the chamber at five minutes after ten. I hope that somebody will be able to account for his absence and for my presence and will answer my question. Nobody is able to tell us why a new force giving advice to the RCMP should be imposed upon the Canadian public upon whose establishment we have never had a chance to vote. That is the essential question:
Dec ember 2, 1971

If it is so good and proper, why were we never presented with the reason for its existence; and if it is so bad, why were we not told about it? With those questions I close my case, and I would like an answer from those who respond on behalf of the greatest police force in the world.


Mr. Douglas A. Hogarth (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: I can assure the hon. member that nothing, as he has suggested, has slipped through the tight net of government spending. If the hon. member had listened carefully to the remarks made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Goyer) in this House he would realize that this group was not set up to advise the RCMP, as he suggested, nor is it a part of the RCMP.
A proposal for the establishment of the security, planning and research group in the headquarters of the Department of the Solicitor General was submitted to the government in April of 1971. The group is established to study the nature, origin and causes of subversive and revolutionary action, its objectives and techniques, as well as the measures necessary to protect Canadians from internal threats, and to compile and analyse information collected on subversive and revolutionary groups and their activities, to estimate the nature and scope of internal threats to Canadians and to plan for measures to counter these threats, and to advise the Solicitor General in respect of these matters so that he can properly advise the government.
In that regard the government approved the establishment of the group in May, 1971, and subsequently positions were authorized for eight officers, three stenographers and one clerk. Colonel Bourne, of whom the hon. member has spoken, was seconded from the Department of National Defence. His salary is paid by that department and will be reimbursed by the Department of Solicitor General as and when this Parliament authorizes funds for it to do so.
One other member of the group was also seconded from the Department of National Defence and another from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Their salaries, likewise, are being paid by those establishments and will be recoverable from the Department of the Solicitor General on the same basis as that of Colonel Bourne. The remainder of the group are members of the public service of Canada. The government considered the need to establish this group on a priority basis. Other positions in the headquarters of the Department of the Solicitor General which had become vacant were utilized so as to provide for recruitment action on a priority basis.
Funds for the reimbursement of salaries to the Department of National Defence, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and to pay the salaries of the remaining members of the group will be found in vote 1 of the estimates of the Department of the Solicitor General and, if sufficient funds are not available in vote 1, in further supplementary estimates, something which was mentioned before the supplementary estimates committee the other day.
As of this date, of the eight officers, three stenographers and one clerk currently authorized by Treasury Board, six officers and three stenographers have been hired and are carrying out the duties of the group as described by the Solicitor General in his statement to the House on
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
September 21, 1971. Any inquiries in respect of the group can be made any time that vote 1 of the estimates of the Department of the Solicitor General is before the House of Commons or the appropriate committee.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-METRO DEVELOPMENT CENTRE, TORONTO-ALLEGED AGREEMENT TO DEMOLISH UNION STATION

Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, on November 16 I directed a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) inquiring whether Canadian National Railways had entered into an agreement with Metro Development Centre, Toronto, to sell Union Station and, if so, did-the federal government agree with the demolition of Union Station. The answer the minister gave was as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member I believe is aware that it is a consortium that is planning what is commonly referred to as Metro Centre. It has the full support of the government. We have given a good deal of assistance to the main parties concerned in order to get it going. One of the objectives is a new terminal, and I believe this involves the destruction of Union Station, but I would assume that the decision whether it is to be destroyed or not would be up to the municipal-
I imagine he wanted to finish by saying "the municipality of the city of Toronto." Mr. Speaker, why is it up to the municipality of the city of Toronto to determine the destruction of Union Station in Toronto? May I remind hon. members that this Union Station land is comprised of approximately nine acres, is owned by the city of Toronto but is subject to a renewable lease of 21 years, in perpetuity, to the railway companies.
In a report by the development commissioner to the executive committee of the city of Toronto on May 6, 1971, the commissioner stated that the maximum value of the nine acres would be in the region of $50 million if it were unencumbered. The encumbrance is the lease to the railways which they obtained at the turn of the century. After obtaining it, subject to a clause which says it must be used for railway purposes only, they proceeded to rent 15 per cent of the land to the Post Office. In 1939 the federal government expropriated the 15 per cent that had been acquired by the Post Office.
In 1946, in determining the compensation for the land that had been expropriated the Exchequer Court said that the encumbrance had no real effect with regard to the value of the land in question. So you have the development commissioner setting a value of $50 million and the real estate experts of the railway company setting the value at $1,500,000, and next the city says they will give it a realistic value of $9,500,000. The question arises, Mr. Speaker, where has the $40 million gone? Perhaps the answer lies in the attitude of the railway which wants to construct the new terminal just south of the Union Station because they know that the present site has greater marketability as a commercial site. I would think that is the reason for the difference in the valuations.
More important are the esthetic qualities of the Union Station. I have with me a picture of Union Station which I wish I could distribute to all members of the House. I wish it could be printed in Hansard because it shows its majes-
10116

December 2, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
ty and beauty. Mr. Speaker, I would not want you to rely on my evaluation of what is beautiful, so I would ask you to note the comments of the vice-president of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario who sent a letter to the chairman and members of Toronto city planning board on June 29 as follows:
Next to our federal Parliament buildings, the Toronto Union Station is the most majestic of Canada's public structures. Its concourse is easily the most magnificent enclosure of space in the country.
With lamentable disregard and in complete insensitivity, it has been proposed that this national heritage be demolished, despite the fact that its useful life span could be prolonged indefinitely. Such vandalism is all the more inexcusable when it is realized that its design is well adapted to fitting into any new complex.
I should also like to quote Professor Richardson, another vice-president of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario, who appeared before the private bills committee of the Ontario legislature. He stated as follows:
They are heroic buildings of noble stance and national importance-
The station has been described as a ticket lobby, but that vast concourse is the most noble room in this country.
Mr. Speaker, is it any wonder that we become very disturbed with regard to the actions of the government on this beautiful building? It is not only the commercial value that the railways see with regard to changing the railway from Front Street in order to locate it further south that concerns me, but also the transportation problems that will result as a consequence of the change. We not only have the main trains going into the station from all parts of the country, but we have the GO train which services the many commuters who come to Toronto to work. If they move that to the locations they have in mind, there will be a distance of 850 feet between the GO train ticket office and the TTC subway ticket office, approximately 300 yards, and a distance of 1600 feet from gate to gate between the main line of the subway line, roughly 550 yards.
There is also the problem of the economic feasibility of a bus terminal within the Metro Centre. We all know that the Spadina expressway has been cancelled. It will involve many transportation problems in regard to moving pedestrians and other traffic in the downtown core of the city.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in replying to the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) I would like to refer him again to the Minister of Transport's statement in the House on November 16. It is a direct answer to his question. On that day the minister explained that the metro development project was a consortium of companies and that it had the full support of the federal government. The fate of Union Station was one which lay not within his purview but with the municipality.
A great deal of planning and consultation has gone into what is known as Metro Centre, Mr. Speaker. It is a very complex and challenging venture, and I am told it will include a multi-modal transportation terminal, an office-commercial area, a large residental community, a com-
(Mr. Gilbert.]
munications and broadcasting sector and other attractive facilities. Since this project was first announced in 1968 there has been extensive consultation with all levels of government. In this case they were not only with the federal government but with the province, metro and the city of Toronto.
After many years of planning, Metro Centre is now moving into the implementation stage and several intergovernmental liaison committees have been established to ensure effective liaison and co-operation between the public and private sectors.
The hon. member has made a number of observations which I will be glad to bring to the minister's attention.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL REPORT-INQUIRY AS TO DECISION ON RECOMMENDATIONS

James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, on April 7 the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) tabled in the House the first report of the Atlantic Development Council. The Atlantic Development Council, under the distinguished chairmanship of Professor William Smith of Fredericton, New Brunswick, a man well known and respected in the Atlantic provinces, was set up under the Government Organization Act of 1969, that being the same statute that set up the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. Section 31 of the act sets out the function of the council. It says that it is the function of the council to advise the minister-
-on matters to which the duties, powers and functions of the minister extend and, in particular, to give consideration to, and make reports and recommendations to the minister on,
(a)	plans, programs and proposals for fostering the economic expansion and social adjustment of the Atlantic region;
(b)	the feasibility of particular programs and projects and the contribution those programs and projects will make to the economic expansion and social adjustment of the Atlantic region; and
(c)	such other matters relating to the duties and functions of the minister under this act in respect of the Atlantic region, as the minister may refer to the council for its consideration.
On December 1, as recorded at page 10065 of Hansard, I directed the following question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion:
Since the first report of the Atlantic Development Council has been on the table of this House since April 7, and since it contains important recommendations on the strategy for development of the Atlantic region, may I ask the minister if any policy decision has been taken on those recommendations and if not, why not?
To which the minister replied: "No, not yet, Mr. Speaker." I should like to know when the government intends to act on the recommendations of the council. The principal recommendations with respect to the ten-year strategy of development for the Atlantic region involve, first, the creation of 170,000 new jobs over the next ten years and 50,000 jobs in the manufacturing centre. Second, the need for a full employment framework within which the Department of Regional Economic Expansion can operate more successfully. Third, an emphasis on the industrial complex approach. Here the idea in mind is a Crown corporation or something similar to it creating a series of interrelated industries in a particular area. Fourth, regionally sensitive monetary and fiscal policies. Fifth,
December 2, 1971

increased consultation between different levels of government and between government and citizens and, sixth, an outlining of Department of Regional Economic Expansion policies so that they may be fully assessed by the public and appreciated.
I believe it is incumbent on the government either to accept or reject the recommendations of the Atlantic Development Council. If the government persists in its policy of ignoring these recommendations, in view of the lack of regional development strategy for the region and in light of the department's persisting in an ad hoc approach to the problem of the chronic unemployed of the region, I believe it is incumbent on the government to ask for the resignation of the members of the Atlantic Development Council.
It seems to me that the recommendations outlined in the press report are exactly what are needed for the region. They contain a ten-year development strategy for a region which is facing chronic unemployment despite the fact that the government has poured substantial funds into the province.
I believe, as do others-including the Atlantic Economic Council, economists in the region, members of provincial governments, and so on-that this approach is exactly what is needed. In other words, there must be a planned approach whereby new jobs can be created and the necessary monetary and fiscal framework prepared by the federal government within which this strategy can be operated effectively. In the absence of a policy statement by the minister on the observations of the Atlantic Development Council, I believe it is incumbent upon him to say exactly what his own policy is. Otherwise we can only
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
assume that he and his principal advisers have no confidence in the members of the development council.


Mr. John Roberts (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) has suggested we should either accept or reject the advice given by the Atlantic Development Council. I think it would be more sensible to study the suggestions thoroughly before deciding whether we ought to accept or reject them. No doubt we shall accept some of the recommendations and reject others.
As the hon. member indicated, it is obvious that these suggestions are wide ranging in a complex field. They deserve the careful study they are receiving. As he knows, there has been a turnover of senior personnel in the department and it is not surprising that the study of a report of such scope should take a considerable amount of time. Certain of the proposals have already been implemented.
I should like to draw the hon. member's attention to the announcement by the minister on October 21 of the establishment of two new programs the creation of which was specifically recommended by the council. I refer to the Atlantic region labour education centre and the Atlantic management institute. It might encourage the hon. member if I tell him there will be a formal meeting between the minister and the members and officials of the council in mid-January. At that time the minister will be exchanging views with the members on the major features of the report.
In light of this, the hon. member's assumption about a need to seek the resignation of the council does not reflect the view of the government, which is treating the report as a matter of valid concern which we believe will make the programs of the department even more effective than they are at the present time.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.27 p.m.

Friday. December 3, 1971