1971-10-08

PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF PRIME MINISTER OF MALAYSIA

Mr. Speaker:: May I bring to the attention of hon. members the presence in the Speaker's gallery of a very distinguished guest of Canada, the Honourable Tun Abdul Razak, Prime Minister of Malaysia.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Even during his relatively brief tenure of office, the Prime Minister has achieved an enviable reputation as the enlightened leader of a progressive country and of a leading nation in the Commonwealth.
Just a few weeks ago, Mr. Prime Minister, your government and your Parliament hosted the annual meeting of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I am pleased to have this occasion to thank you, your fellow parliamentarians and your government for the generous hospitality which on that occasion you extended to the Canadian members and Senators who represented the Canadian Parliament.

On behalf of all my colleagues, I bid you the most cordial welcome.

On behalf of my colleagues in the House of Commons I extend to you, Mr. Prime Minister, the warmest of welcomes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy this morning to be able to reveal to the House that the government has accepted all those recommendations of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Bicul-turalism which are contained in Volume IV of its reports directed to federal departments and agencies. Hon. members will recall that the subject of this volume is "the contribution by other ethnic groups to the cultural enrichment of Canada and the measures that should be taken to safeguard that contribution".
Volume IV examined the whole question of cultural and ethnic pluralism in this country and the status of our various cultures and languages, an area of study given all too little attention in the past by scholars.
It was the view of the royal commission, shared by the government and, I am sure, by all Canadians, that there cannot be one cultural policy for Canadians of British and French origin, another for the original peoples and yet a third for all others. For although there are two official languages, there is no official culture, nor does any ethnic group take precedence over any other. No citizen or group of citizens is other than Canadian, and all should be treated fairly.
The royal commission was guided by the belief that adherence to one's ethnic group is influenced not so much by one's origin or mother tongue as by one's sense of belonging to the group, and by what the commission calls the group's "collective will to exist". The government shares this belief.
The individual's freedom would be hampered if he were locked for life within a particular cultural compartment by the accident of birth or language. It is vital, therefore, that every Canadian, whatever his ethnic origin, be given a chance to learn at least one of the two languages in which his country conducts its official business and its politics.
A policy of multiculturalism within a bilingual framework commends itself to the government as the most suitable means of assuring the cultural freedom of Canadians. Such a policy should help to break down discriminatory attitudes and cultural jealousies. National unity if it is to mean anything in the deeply personal sense, must be founded on confidence in one's own individual identity; out of this can grow respect for that of others and a willingness to share ideas, attitudes and assumptions. A vigorous policy of multiculturalism will help create this initial confidence. It can form the base of a society which is based on fair play for all.
The government will support and encourage the various cultures and ethnic groups that give structure and vitality to our society. They will be encouraged to share their cultural expression and values with other Canadians and so contribute to a richer life for us all.
In the past, substantial public support has been given largely to the arts and cultural institutions of Englishspeaking Canada. More recently and largely with the help of the royal commission's earlier recommendations in Volumes I to III, there has been a conscious effort on the government's part to correct any bias against the French language and culture. In the last few months the government has taken steps to provide funds to support cultural educational centres for native people. The policy I am announcing today accepts the contention of the other

October 8, 1971
Canadian Culture
cultural communities that they, too, are essential elements in Canada and deserve government assistance in order to contribute to regional and national life in ways that derive from their heritage yet are distinctively Canadian.
In implementing a policy of multiculturalism within a bilingual framework, the government will provide support in four ways.
First, resources permitting, the government will seek to assist all Canadian cultural groups that have demonstrated a desire and effort to continue to develop a capacity to grow and contribute to Canada, and a clear need for assistance, the small and weak groups no less than the strong and highly organized.
Second, the government will assist members of all cultural groups to overcome cultural barriers to full participation in Canadian society.
Third, the government will promote creative encounters and interchange among all Canadian cultural groups in the interest of national unity.
Fourth, the government will continue to assist immigrants to acquire at least one of Canada's official languages in order to become full participants in Canadian society.

Mr. Speaker, I stated at the outset that the government has accepted in principle all recommendations addressed to federal departments and agencies. We are also ready and willing to work co-operatively with the provincial governments towards implementing those recommendations that concern matters under provincial or shared responsibility.
Some of the programmes endorsed or recommended by the Commission have been administered for some time by various federal agencies. I might mention the Citizenship Branch, the CRTC and its predecessor the BBG, the National Film Board and the National Museum of Man. These programmes will be revised, broadened and reactivated and they will receive the additional funds that may be required.
Some of the recommendations that concern matters under provincial jurisdiction call for coordinated federal and provincial action. As a first step, I have written to the First Ministers of the provinces informing them of the response of the federal government and seeking their co-operation. Officials will be asked to carry this consultation further.
I wish to table details of the government's response to each of the several recommendations.
It should be noted that some of the programmes require pilot projects or further short-term research before more extensive action can be taken. As soon as these preliminary studies are available, further programmes will be announced and initiated. Additional financial and personnel resources will be provided.
Responsibility for implementing these recommendations has been assigned to the Citizenship Branch of the Department of the Secretary of State, the agency now responsible for matters affecting the social integration of immigrants and the cultural activities of all ethnic groups. An Inter-Agency Committee of all those agencies involved will be established to co-ordinate the federal effort.


In conclusion, I wish to emphasize the view of the government that a policy of multiculturalism within a bilingual framework is basically the conscious support of individual freedom of choice. We are free to be ourselves. But this cannot be left to chance. It must be fostered and pursued actively. If freedom of choice is in danger for some ethnic groups, it is in danger for all. It is the policy of this government to eliminate any such danger and to "safeguard" this feeedom.
I am tabling this document, Mr. Speaker, but it might be the desire of the House to have it appended to Hansard in view of its importance and long-lasting effect.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For document referred to above, see appendix.]


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, these are excellent words in the Prime Minister's statement. I am sure this declaration by the government of the principle of preserving and enhancing the many cultural traditions which exist within our country will be most welcome. I think it is about time this government finally admitted that the cultural identity of Canada is a pretty complex thing.

I wish to state immediately, Mr. Speaker, that the emphasis we have given to multiculturalism in no way constitutes an attack on the basic duality of our country. What we want is justice for all Canadians, and recognition of the cultural diversity of this country.

It is about time the government finally recognized the validity of what we were trying to say in June of 1969 at the time of the debate on the official languages bill in the amendment we put forward then proposing recognition of the right to speak other languages and the importance of assisting in the development and preservation of these other cultures. The amendment said that we can accept the official duality of the country without denying the rights of other cultural groups. Our amendment was put forward for that purpose. It is pleasing to note that the government this morning is recognizing the importance of the rights of other cultural groups, although at that time our amendment was rejected out of hand. I am pleased the government has seen the light. But I must also say that, although this is all to the good, I regret that this statement was not made much more promptly.
Apart from what members of our party, among others, have been saying, it is a fact that the fourth volume of the B and B report has been available since early 1970, and I say in all sincerity that the failure of the government to endorse these principles earlier has created some suspicion, some doubts, in the minds of the members of these other cultural groups about the importance the government of Canada has attached to them. I must say that if the effectiveness of the government's action in encouraging the cultural self-fulfilment of the native peoples of Canada can be taken as any kind of an indication of what the practice will be in this broader field, apart from the
October 8, 1971

statement of principles, then there is not a great deal of hope for the various non-French and non-British ethnic groups within Canada. With regard to the native peoples, there have been many statements about high principles but very little in the way of results and there is some doubt, to mention one example, concerning whether the government is doing enough in northeastern Alberta to help the native peoples study their own language.
It is fine to announce a principle, but perhaps the most important thing is what the government is going to do to implement this principle. When the Prime Minister uses a phrase such as "within available funds" we must keep in mind the importance of a balance here. There is no indication whatsoever in the Prime Minister's statement this morning that there will be any substantial implementation. I fully agree that a good deal of money must be expended for the encouragement of the development of bilingualism in this country, but I do not think that members of the other cultural groups with other cultural traditions are at all happy with the relatively pitiful amounts that have been allocated to this other aspect of the diversity about which the Prime Minister spoke this morning, multiculturalism.
The Prime Minister has announced the principles. We expect the Prime Minister and his colleagues to give those principles life and meaning, and we will look forward most anxiously to the implementation of these principles.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I must say, Mr. Speaker, that it is a pleasure to be able to comment on an important aspect of Canadian life that does not have to do with the economy or with unemployment, and it is equally a pleasure to be able to agree with the statement that the Prime Minister made this morning.
As members of this House know, I have not hesitated to criticize government policy, and no doubt a great deal can be said about tardiness and other aspects of the problem which the Prime Minister has put before us. But I propose this morning merely to express our support and our hopes in order to indicate to the people of Canada that this Parliament is united in its belated determination to recognize the value of the many cultures in our country. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, it is with a deep appreciation of both aspects of our Canadian cultural life, official bilingualism and multiculturalism, that my party warmly supports the principles set forth this morning by the Prime Minister.
I have often said that one of the most striking wealth of our country is the fact that it has been founded by two distinctive groups having two distinctive languages well known throughout the world. However, another wealth is also important, since we find in Canada some representatives of almost all the cultures in the world. To all Canadians, whatever their ethnic origin, I say that they must be proud of those two enriching aspects of our country. [English]
Every society has its own cultural treasures which it cherishes with pride. It is a fact of man's history that his preoccupations have been too frequently centred on material development and that his spirit has too often
Canadian Culture
been embittered by conflict and by prejudice. The result has been throughout the world-and this is true of Canadians as well-a failure to appreciate the values of diversity, a tendency to resent rather than to welcome enriching differences. For Canada this attitude is particularly destructive. The diversity of cultures across the land is a source of our greatness as a people.
To cite a recent example, when I arrived a couple of months ago in that small but great town of New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, I was greeted in literally ten languages, four or five of which I was able to follow without translation. If Hansard permitted, Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to express my pleasure at the Prime Minister's statement of principles in at least two or three other languages in which I could do so without breaking my teeth and in one or two others in which I could do so with some difficulty.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Go ahead.


David Lewis: I say that to emphasize the importance of appreciating the cultural diversity of our land as one of the greatnesses of our people.
As a representative from Toronto I could perhaps say that even a serious subject permits of a little lightness. There was a time not so very long ago when there were jokes made all across Canada about spending a month in Toronto last weekend, and other remarks of that sort. But it is a fact that the influx of people of Italian origin, of Greek origin, of West Indian origin, of origins from many other parts of the world, has made Torontonians proud of their city in a way in which they were not before, and makes some of them even suggest that it is now a viable rival to the city of Montreal.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, it is a fact of society that every minority has a problem of survival. It has a problem of assimilation. It has a problem of keeping alive.


An hon. Member:: The NDP.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Or the Liberal party in British Columbia.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I must admit that at first I was annoyed by that vapid and rather stupid remark from the other side of the House by the hon. member for New Westminster, but I decided that perhaps the hon. member was trying to be funny and, if he did not succeed, that may not be his fault.


Mr. Hees:: He did pretty well.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if I may become serious again, I suggest that the important point that faces us is that in every society a minority has a problem, the problem of survival, the problem of keeping alive its history, its language, its traditions, its songs, its legends, its identity. When the majority in a society is as cruel as majorities have often been, not only are minorities crushed but the spirit of that society, the soul of that society, is destroyed. It is in that spirit, therefore, that on behalf of my party I welcome the Prime Minister's statement without any reservations.

October 8, 1971
Canadian Culture
I make only these two short comments in conclusion. I suggest that our failure in this area in the past was not the fault of any one government or any one level of government in Canada. It has been a failure of all our people across this country, a failure of Canadians to appreciate the importance of these things, a failure of Canadians in their neglect of the native peoples of this country. I am not saying this to needle the Prime Minister or the government but I say, because I believe it to be true. The statement of principles will be a mockery and a betrayal of high ideals and objectives unless collectively we provide the funds to make the principles meaningful in the lives of the minorities in Canada, and unless we develop programs in consultation with the minorities, giving them every opportunity to participate in the development of programs rather than imposing such programs on them. Democracy requires this kind of consideration, and with all my heart I hope that the statement of principles will be followed with action which will make us all proud of our country.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, even if I do not always agree with the Prime Minister on various points, I fully agree with the statement he made this morning. Indeed, I have been repeating for 30 years, to those who will hear me, and those who won't, that we have one Canadian nation and not two, three or ten, that we have two official languages, English and French, and that we have a multiplicity of cultures which are the wealth of our country.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and myself are happy the Prime Minister made that statement. However, I find this statement somewhat confusing. The Prime Minister has stated and I quote:
For although there are two official languages, there is no official culture, nor does any ethnic group take precedence over any other. No citizen or group of citizens is other than Canadian .. .
Mr. Speaker, if there is no official culture in Canada, I do not see how we could succeed in really becoming a nation while we would be endowed with only a few cultures unable to get on among themselves or at war with one another. I am positive that we have in Canada a culture peculiar to us. We French Canadians have one that is not at all that of France, just as English-speaking Canadians have a culture which is different from that of Englishmen from England. We have our own Canadian culture. We have our history. Our traditions and customs may differ from one area or ethnic group to another. However, if we cannot change an Englishman into a Frenchman, or vice versa, we can nonetheless make good Canadians out of members of all ethnic groups in Canada.
Ukrainians, Italians and Germans must be able to attain self-fulfilment in Canada.
I am absolutely convinced that Canadians in general share the views expressed this morning by the Prime Minister. So there is no reason to worry. There is trouble in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. Some say that if things are going wrong, it is the fault of French Canadians or English Canadians, or because we welcome too many immigrants, and so on.


What I said in French was that we do not want to have in Canada a little France, a little England, a little Italy or a little Russia. We want in Canada a great country for all the people of Canada, for all the ethnic groups in our country. Through that channel we will achieve unity and we will reinforce our position in the whole world.



UNITED NATIONS


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I seek the unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion dealing with an important aspect of the conduct of this country's foreign policy, namely, the announced intention of the Canadian United Nations delegation to vote for the Albanian resolution calling for the expulsion of a member of the United Nations.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave):
That, before Canada's vote is cast on this very serious, important and portentous resolution that the question be referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence for full discussion and consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Hillsborough. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move a motion under Standing Order 43 regarding an extremely important matter and I would ask for unanimous consent to put the said motion. As of this date 40 violent murders have taken place in Montreal during 1971, which constitutes an all-time record for that city. At the same time, 78 murders have taken place in western Quebec and the province as a whole is also moving toward a record in this regard. A good many of these murders appear to have been carried out by organized criminal groups. I might point out that the same thing is taking place in other provinces but I do not have the statistics. I would therefore move:
That the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs be instructed to conduct an inquiry into the causes and nature of violent crime in Canada, and that recommendations be formulated for the amendment of the appropriate criminal law statutes.
October 8, 1971


Mr. Speaker:: The motion proposed by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace under Standing Order 43 requires unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


An hon. Member:: Who said no?


Mr. Bell:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


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


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, so there will be no misunderstanding on this matter and in view of the difficulties we had last time, let it be recorded that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was the one who said no.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is completely false. I did not make any comment. The member is-


An hon. Member:: Will you support it?


Thomas Miller Bell: What other flunkey did it for you?



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. The Minister of National Revenue is reported to have said yesterday that the Canadian government is ready to resume discussions with the United States at any time on the auto pact agreement and that the United States authorities have been so informed. Would the Prime Minister tell the House whether this is a statement of government policy and whether in fact such a message has been communicated to the United States authorities?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is a statement of government policy. In his speech the minister indicated that the discussions had been going on when President Nixon's statement was made in the middle of August and that we have always taken the position that we are prepared to keep on with the discussions. What we have said is that discussions on the auto pact were not linked in our minds to the question of the surcharge. They had begun before and we have felt they can continue at any time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the Prime Minister's answer I wonder whether he could clarify to the House how he reconciles our willingness to continue discussions with the United States on this matter with the message that the government sent to the United States that it was unprepared at this time to resume talks with that government
Inquiries of the Ministry
on energy policies because our ministers and officials were too busy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some reservations about the form of the question and the way in which it was asked by the Leader of the Opposition. I really do not think it is in order for a member to ask the government how one statement is reconciled with another. That is obviously debate. Perhaps the question might be asked in another form.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in the light of the apparent conflict, perhaps the Prime Minister would indicate briefly what the position of the government is.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The position of the government is that we cannot do all things at all times. In this case the discussion of the auto pact had begun, it was in train, and we have the officials and the policy which permit us to continue discussions. In the case of energy discussions, we are not at this time prepared to continue them because we do not have the wherewithal, the personnel and the time to arrive at a decision. We want further discussions on that.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is the Prime Minister insisting, as the Minister of National Revenue has insisted, that the discussions relating to the auto pact are not connected in any way with the surtax? Does this not mean, logically, that the government's refusal to proceed with the discussion of energy matters is related to the surtax?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.



CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT-REQUEST FOR POLICY STATEMENT ON SAFEGUARDS AND CANADIAN VALUE ADDED CONTENT

Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Mr. Speaker. Given the persistent and ambivalent confusion of the government's position on the automotive pact, would the minister consider making a statement early next week on the government's policy respecting the automotive industry at this time and, in particular, dealing with two points? First, would he indicate the government's intention with regard to the safeguards which already exist within the automotive agreement? Second, would he indicate to the House whether or not the government intends to make clear to the Americans that we will not be content with automotive production in this country until the terms of the automotive agreement provide for a minimum 100 per cent level of Canadian value added content for North American automobiles sold in this country?


Hon. Iean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I think the position of the government on the automotive agreement is very clear. We have said that we would enter into discussions with the United States on this pact at any time. As a matter of fact, the pact itself says that either party must, so there is nothing ominous in the position we take. With respect to the safeguards, the Prime Minister and I and others have repeated that these are debatable subjects, that the impor-

October 8, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
tant thing is to make sure that there is continued benefit under this agreement for both Canada and the United States. With respect to the objective of 100 per cent Canadian value added, this is not in the pact itself. This is an extrapolation that my hon. friend makes from the pact, which seems to him to be a reasonable objective, but others could have different views and even think that this is not sufficient. These are all debatable points and we are willing to talk them over with other people.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby for one further supplementary and then recognize the hon. member.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I am well aware that the objective of 100 per cent CVA is not in the pact. Is the government of Canada, in terms of its negotiating position on this issue, insisting or requesting that this be added to the pact?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the problem with targets is that they are either too high or too low. If you set a target that is too high and you fail to reach it, you are in trouble. If you set it too low and you overpass the target, you are also in trouble.



MEASURES TO LIMIT INFLATION AND KEEP CANADIAN


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. As it is obvious that Canadian products must remain competitive if they are to continue to compete successfully in the United States market, is it the intention of the government in the near future to introduce measures designed to keep inflation in Canada from increasing at a rate greater than between 2 per cent and 3 per cent per year?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we have the situation under review.


George Harris Hees: I think we need more than a review to deal with this matter. Is it the view of the government that Canadian products can continue to compete successfully in the United States market inasmuch as it was announced last night that inflation in that country will be strictly controlled within certain tight limits while inflation in Canada is increasing at a rate which during the last two months reached an annual rate of 9 per cent per year?


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Nonsense, Mr. Speaker.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What the hell are you going to do about it? Is the government going to continue to do nothing?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Baldwin:: The worst inflation is among parliamentary secretaries.


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


George Harris Hees: What a Prime Minister and what a government! My lord! No wonder we are in such a mess.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for York South.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I know it has been asked several times recently. May I ask precisely when the House may expect an announcement of the government's program to deal with unemployment this winter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Soon, Mr. Speaker.


George Harris Hees: Oh, is that not sweet?


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, since the federal government's policy program is likely to need the involvement of other levels of government, may I ask the Prime Minister why the government is delaying so long that it becomes increasingly more difficult every day for such a program to be of value?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is argumentative. I suggest to the hon. member that in those terms it is not in order.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I rephrase it. I hope the Prime Minister will not deal with the unemployment problem in the flippant way he usually does.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: He does that because he does not care.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The second supplementary fs not an improvement on the first. I suggest to the hon. member that he should ask the question directly.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, since other levels of government will no doubt have to participate in implementing any program that the government may announce, are the outlines of the program now being considered by the government before any of the provincial governments for their discussion and understanding in preparation for their part and the part of municipalities in the program?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, some ideas have been put forth by some provincial governments as to ways in which the government and the country should be dealing with unemployment. We ourselves are considering others. The federal government is not standing in the way of any actions by provincial governments if they want to proceed on their own. I am merely saying that when we have a package to put to the provinces we will put it to them and announce it to the House at the same time.
October 8, 1971


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I assume, and if I am wrong in my assumption the Prime Minister will correct me, that any program the government may announce will involve participation by other levels of government. In view of that, are any discussions taking place between the federal and provincial governments with respect to the content of that program?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will correct the assumption of the hon. member. It is wrong. There are many things the federal government can do on its own without provincial participation.


George Harris Hees: Then why do you not do them?



UNEMPLOYMENT-SUGGESTED WINTER HOUSE BUILDING INCENTIVE PROGRAM

Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. To create jobs, will the government revive the winter house building incentive program?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. The programs we will announce will be made known and the hon. member can then judge whether, in his view, they are a resuscitation of previous programs or whether there is something new.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We cannot wait.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the hon. Minister of National Revenue.
In view of the Solicitor General's statement yesterday that the rehabilitation of 2,000 former inmates who have secured a job could yield $1,300,000 in federal and provincial income taxes, could the Minister of National Revenue tell us how much income tax he is losing due to the 700,000 jobless in Canada?



AGRICULTURE


Mr. S. I. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Since many areas have been hailed out and the Prairie Farm Assistance Act has not been phased out, will there be any inspections this year? Is the minister planning any inspection in order to help those areas?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There is no change in the inspections and in the payment levels for this year even though we are not collecting the levy, and there will not be any change, for the next crop year, in those areas where crop insurance is unavailable. But of course the same rules as have applied
Inquiries of the Ministry
in the past will apply to the basis upon which inspection is made this year.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Finance. Does the government intend to make a statement early next week on its assessment of the measures announced last night by President Nixon and whether consideration should be given to implementing in this country a system of wage and price controls parallel to that in the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will take this matter up with the Minister of Finance.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: May I ask the Prime Minister whether, in the light of the consideration which may have to be given to parallel action respecting wage and price controls, the scope of the forthcoming conference with the provinces will be enlarged to include this question inasmuch as the co-operation of the provinces is necessarily required?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, within the limits open to one in trying to answer a hypothetical question, I think that were the "if" to be substantiated the conclusion would probably follow.



INFLATION-CONTINUATION OF PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION BEYOND DECEMBER 31-PUBLICATION OF WAGE AND PRICE CONTROL GUIDELINES

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Has the government decided to continue the role of the Prices and Incomes Commission beyond December 31 of this year and has a set of guidelines been established in connection with price and wage controls? Further, would the right hon. gentleman undertake to make any such guidelines known to the House of Commons and the public generally?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If guidelines were to be established they would be made public in the House of Commons.


John Howard Lundrigan: Would the Prime Minister answer the first part of my question? Has the government made a conscious decision to continue the role of the Prices and Incomes Commission after December 31 of this year?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is my recollection that the commission has been continued until the month of June next year. I will verify whether that is the case. I believe it is.

October 8, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr.   Yvon@: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Revenue.
Will the Association of Quebec cider producers soon get a reply from the Minister of National Revenue, with regard to their application for excise tax exemption on champagnes as applied to cider, according to the interpretation given to an act dating back almost half a century?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister oi National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, following the hon. member's representations I shall be happy to try to give an answer as soon as possible.
* *
*



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Rod Thomson (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development arising out of the minister's statement concerning the hiring of natives by northern industries. Is the hon. gentleman prepared to establish specific criteria as a basis for hiring these people, and is he prepared to assess specific financial penalties against companies that do not comply?


Hon. lean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr.Speaker, it is not our intention to apply quotas or penalties at the present time. However, I have approached industries with a view to obtaining their co-operation, failing which we may take concrete action according to the criteria I outlined in my speech earlier this week.
*
* *



HARBOURS


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. On May 12 in the course of his statement on ports policy the minister indicated that further details would be announced after consultation with local interests. In view of disturbing reports that there is dissatisfaction in at least two of the larger ports, can the minister tell us whether these problems have been resolved, and can he now announce the responsibilities and the make-up of the nine port authorities?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: No,
Mr. Speaker, I cannot do the latter, that is, announce the

make-up of the nine port authorities. I can say, however, that most of the problems have been resolved. I can assure the hon. member that if there are a few Solomons around he might give me their names because it has been very difficult to make some of these necessary decisions. I anticipate that within a few days I shall be able to announce the names of two additions to the National Harbours Board as well as the make-up of the port authorities for Vancouver and Montreal.


Charles Humbert Thomas: I am happy to hear that the minister will be announcing the names of two new appointees. I am wondering whether one of them will be stationed in the Atlantic area as I requested on May 12.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Neither of the two gentlemen concerned, but the reference I made to Solomon a few moments ago was in precisely that context. It is the intention of the government to locate one member of the National Harbours Board in the Atlantic provinces, but where he will go is the key question, as the hon. member well knows.
* *
*



STABILIZATION BILL-INVITATION TO MINISTER TO MEET WITH WESTERN FARM ORGANIZATIONS TO DISCUSS AMENDMENTS

Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister in charge of the Wheat Board but in his absence I will direct it to the acting minister. Is it the intention of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board to accept the invitation extended to him by several farm organizations in western Canada to meet with them to discuss amendments to the prairie grain stabilization bill?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I will take the question as notice and advise the minister responsible for the Wheat Board.


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Having regard to the telegrams and correspondence now arriving in our offices, and no doubt in his office, running about ten to one against the stabilization plan in its present form-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is making a speech. If he has a question he should ask it directly. I again invite hon. members to refrain from reviving during the question period a debate we have been pursuing for some weeks.


John Leroy Skoberg: I was following along the lines of what the minister did the other day. In view of the invitation extended to the Prime Minister as well from the Wheat Pools and the National Farmers Union to meet with them to discuss certain amendments, would the right hon. gentleman not agree to withdraw this bill until this meeting has taken place?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The policy of the government has been quite clear. I cannot understand how an opposition member would want us to withdraw

October 8, 1971
the bill. He would then say we were continuing our so-called illegality.


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


John Leroy Skoberg: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think it should be clear that I did not request the withdrawal of the bill. I suggested that the bill should not be proceeded with until the meeting had taken place.



AIR CANADA


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.
In view of the possibility of a strike by 2,000 Air Canada employees which may seriously inconvenience a large number of travellers over the next few days, could the minister tell the House whether he or his colleague the Minister of Labour, who has been asked to resort to conciliation to bring this unfortunate situation to an end, have considered special action? If so, what is such action?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: understand that at the moment at least the proposed strike has had no effect on the operations of the air line. The air line is hopeful and, indeed, is satisfied that it will not cause any major slowdown. I am awaiting a further report today. As always, I am sure the services of the Minister of Labour will be available for conciliation if necessary.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. I understand there is another survey going on in his department with a view to ascertaining what facilities might be needed for a new combined air services training school. Is it the intention to use existing facilities for this school or are new facilities to be constructed? I have in mind the facilities at the Canadian Forces Base at Clinton.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and thanks to the representations the hon. member has made on innumerable occasions in this regard I have had the most exhaustive study made of the Clinton base along with the Minister of National Defence to ascertain whether it would be feasible for us to use a portion of it as an air traffic control school or some related activity. I regret to advise the hon. member and the House that we have concluded it is not a suitable site and we shall be looking elsewhere.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Elgin McKinley: May I ask the Minister of National Defence whether he intends to convene a meeting among other levels of government as requested by Huron County to discuss the future of this facility?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: I would be quite prepared to hold additional meetings on this subject as they may be arranged with responsible elected bodies.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Dr. Hawkins of the Health of Animals Branch has been reported in the press as stating that Newcastle disease in poultry was first diagnosed by that department in Lamb-ton County in June, 1971. However, a written answer to Question No. 1700, tabled in the House recently, reported that the first instance of this disease was diagnosed in Kent County a month later in July. In view of the conflicting statements and the seriousness of the disease, will the minister undertake an investigation to provide the correct answer and advise the House which one to believe?
noon)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I certainly acknowledge the seriousness of this matter. I should like to advise the hon. member that I will have a more detailed reply, but I would also like to advise him that there is a difference between recognition of symptoms and actually isolating the live virus. I think that is where the difference lies here.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: In view of the rapid spread of this airborne virus, if the minister finds out that Dr. Hawkins' statement is the correct one will he cause a further investigation to be made to ascertain the reason for the supres-sion or delay of the report?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will recognize that the question is either hypothetical or a recommendation to the minister.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the Minister of Justice, I should like to put this question to the Solicitor General. In light of the alarmingly high rate of murders this year, is the government considering any special program to deal with this serious problem?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, we are continually and relentlessly fighting organized crime in Canada. There are two points I would like to

October 8, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
make. First, the provinces have a part to play in this field, and we work in close co-operation with them. Second, this is a police officer's task, and we believe that operations in this connection should be led by experts, and that, while some of these may be successful at times, others fail, because fighting organized crime is no easy matter.


William Warren Allmand: Would the minister or the government consider establishing a task force, a royal commission or an inquiry by Parliament to look into the causes and nature of violent crime in Canada?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, in the light of my earlier reply, I am afraid that the hon. member's proposal would be a delusion, and that the work of such a committee would only reveal what several people already suspect.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. lames A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister who is in the House but not in his seat; hence he will be unable to reply to my question until he resumes his seat. Is the government now giving consideration to introducing a special on the job training program aimed at getting at least 25,000 young people off the unemployment rolls this winter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know from reading the press, the government appears to be considering a great number of things, including this. These stories are not always accurate and it would be inadvisable for the press to hold its breath until we make announcements on these specific matters.


George Harris Hees: You are not doing anything, so the press does not hold its breath and wait for you to do something.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not criticizing these stories in any way; I am telling the House that questions based on these reports do not necessarily elicit a positive answer from the government.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which I hope will receive an answer from the government. Is the government giving priority to a special program of job training for our young people to get them back to work this winter and, if so, will this matter be discussed with the appropriate provincial authorities?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in cases where any programs that we may want to follow come partly within provincial jurisdiction I can assure the House that we will discuss them with the proper provincial authorities.



TAXATION


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I understand the Prime Minister has now sent a reply to the Premier's letter of August 6 requesting a one-year delay in the implementation of the proposals regarding changes in succession duties and gift taxes. I wonder whether the Prime Minister is now in a position to inform the House of the nature of his reply?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I answered this question in the House. I indicated that my reply was to the effect that we were not going to delay the implementation of the government's decision, subject to our getting the legislation through the House, of course. I added that federal officials and ministers would be prepared to discuss with provinces that desire to have discussion on ways in which we might assist them in preparing to raise their own taxes if they wanted to step in where the federal government had stepped out. As the House knows, the announcement was to the effect that we would not continue collecting these taxes but that if the provinces wanted to start collecting them we would try to assist them to do so.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Before the Prime Minister tells the convention of the Ukrainian-Canadian Congress, would he tell the House what views he will express to Commissar Kosygin on behalf of minority groups in the U.S.S.R ?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would rather follow a different sequence and listen to what the Ukrainians have to say and get their reactions before deciding what to tell Premier Kosygin.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which is a very simple one. Is or is not the Prime Minister prepared to take a stand for freedom?


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Supply and Services. Has the minister met with officials of the Polymer Corporation and, if so, will he agree to meet further with them in an attempt to find ways of reducing or stopping altogether the lay-off of 250 men?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I have been in close contact with
October 8, 1971

officials of Polymer about the reduction in the work force. The company has set up an employment centre to work with other agencies and be of assistance in helping those men who have been laid off to find other work. I might also say that the officials have advised me that the action of the government in bringing in the Employment Support Act will be helpful to Polymer in its employment difficulties.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: In the ordinary course of events, corporations in difficulty do not declare dividends and in fact often operate at a loss for a short time. Is the government prepared to allow this option to Polymer if it means saving jobs?


James Armstrong Richardson: Well, Mr. Speaker, that question is hypothetical.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Supply and Services. In view of the partial and in some cases complete disbanding of research departments recently at Celanese, Shawinigan, Dow and now Polymer, which will be difficult to reassemble once shut down, would the government take some initiative to keep such research departments active in Canada and switch them from Industry to government service?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, this does not come within my direct area of responsibility but inasmuch as it concerns Polymer I will certainly take note of it.


IMPERIAL OIL-PROPOSAL TO MOVE OPERATIONS FROM MANITOBA
Mr. loseph-Philippe Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Will the Minister of Supply and Services also take into consideration the proposal put forward by Imperial Oil to move its entire Manitoba operation to Edmonton?


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the environment. Has the minister seen the report of the Canadian Wildlife Service recommending that because of its ecological uniqueness the Suffield military base be used as a grasslands park, and is the minister supporting this recommendation in the current debate on the matter?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Wildlife Service has been working very closely with the Department of National Defence regarding the ecological aspects of the Suffield area. I have seen the reports. The proposal is that areas with unique characteristics will be preserved and not damaged in any way by activity there.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the area is the home of several threatened species-


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Tories.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Conservatives-in Alberta? I suggest that comment displays the ignorance of the hon. member on many matters. In view of the fact that the area is the home of several threatened species of wildlife, and keeping in mind the fact there are other military areas such as Shilo available for training, will the minister table the report of the wildlife branch so other members and the people of Canada can be enlightened on this matter?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, we will be prepared to table any information received as a result of the surveys by the Canadian Wildlife Service. Perhaps the Minister of National Defence would like to say a word on this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that we are running short of time and I notice a number of members who have been trying to ask questions for a few days. I think they should be given an opportunity to do so, particularly the hon. member for St. John's West.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not want to encroach upon the time of other hon. members seeking to ask questions during the question period, but I noticed that the Minister of National Defence was anxious to make a statement on the matter I raised earlier. I should not like him to be frustrated over the weekend because he did not have an opportunity to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister can make that statement now with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to point out to the hon. member that the facilities at Shilo are not equivalent in size to the facilities at Suffield and therefore it is not an alternative.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs concerning an urban renewal scheme

October 8, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
in St. John's West referred to as the Blackhead Road urban renewal scheme. Will he inform the House whether it is his intention to appoint a commission to inquire into charges of mismanagement, and other problems which have come to light, as requested by the householders union of the Blackhead Road urban renewal scheme?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have not had an opportunity to assess the allegations, but I know there has been a recent meeting between representatives of that association and officials of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I will be glad to expedite the results of that report and see just where the matter stands.


WATER RESOURCES
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the recent statement by the Minister of the Environment that Ottawa should have insisted on using the Navigable Waters Protection Act so that the unfavourable downstream effects of the Bennett Dam in Wood Buffalo Park could have been kept to a minimum, I should like to ask how this act can be used against Crown corporations since they are hot subject to its provisions?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Obviously the hon. member is asking for a legal interpretation and his question in those terms is not in order.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that increases in pensions of retired public servants take place on an annual basis, and thus far the increases provided by Canadian National Railways have been on a one-shot basis, I should like to ask the minister whether he is still having discussions with officials of the CNR concerning the possibility of having these pensions escalated every year in relation to the increase in the cost of living?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to do that, but so far I have not discussed that specific matter with them.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the difficulties faced by the pulp and paper industries I

should like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce whether the government is considering the brief presented to it earlier this year by that industry, and is it confident that the proposed changes in the tax bill will meet the industry's assertion that the present tax structure places it at a serious disadvantage compared with its main competitors?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that the second part of the hon. member's question is obviously part of the debate that we may be having later today.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government is going to involve the private sector in the development of new economic policies and, if so, is a conference among representatives of the government, labour and business now under consideration?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would think that the government will, indeed, want to involve the private sector and various groups in the economy in respect of any economic policy we might follow. At this time there is no, shall we say, nationwide conference slated, but there have been meetings between the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and groups of people in the industrial and financial communities. There have also been some meetings between the Minister of Labour and labour leaders with this object in mind.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Speaker, in view of the economic situation in our country will the Prime Minister give urgent priority to this matter?


UNITED NATIONS
Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns the Albanian resolution regarding China's membership in the United Nations. In light of the minister's statement yesterday that there is no question of chucking any member out, will the Acting Minister table in the House the text of the Albanian resolution which does, in fact, call for the immediate expulsion of the Taiwan government from the UN?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot subscribe to the facts as stated by the hon. member. I am sure it would be easy to get a copy of the Albanian resolution and table it in the House, if the House so desired. I will convey the request to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
October 8, 1971


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Roch La Salle (loliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
In view of the meetings which took place between himself and representatives of the potato growing provinces and because of the increasing concern of the potato farmers, I would like to ask him whether he could make a statement about the meetings he had with those representatives or whether he could at least assure the House that he will make a statement next week in order to remedy the difficulties of that group of farmers?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I have held a number of meetings and a committee has been established, made up of officials of both provincial and federal Departments of Agriculture, to find ways and means by which we can take early action to strengthen the market for potatoes. We have not reached an agreement as to the best means of achieving this objective.


GRASSHOPPERS-CONTINGENCY PLAN TO AVERT PLAGUE NEXT SUMMER
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. In light of what appears to be growing concern that there may be a grasshopper plaque in western Canada next summer-


An hon. Member:: Is that what you call yourselves?


Jack Burnett Murta: -is the government going to organize a contingency plan to avert such a plague and, if so, is it going to conduct discussions with the provincial governments this fall?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I know there is some concern in certain areas about the higher grasshopper egg count. Of course, the primary responsibility lies with the provinces but any assistance we can give will be forthcoming.


BERTHA ARMY WORM INFESTATION-ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS
Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the Minister of Transport that a plague will occur in Assiniboia during the election, and there is no doubt about that. I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether the government has yet agreed to assist the provinces in aiding farmers hurt by the Bertha army worm infestation this summer?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker, no statement of that nature has been made.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, may I get, through
Income Tax Act
you, the unanimous consent of this House, so as to answer a question which was put to me yesterday?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is seeking unanimous consent of the House to reply to a question he was asked earlier.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to the hon. member for Brant who put a question to me, on Wednesday, regarding the Hill report on the Six Nations reservation, in Brantford.
I must say that this report has been ordered by the Indian Council, and is presently considered by them. This is not a departmental report. We are aware of it, but the Council of the bands has not so far seen fit to discuss it with officials from my department. When they do, I shall be pleased to report to the hon. member.


GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, October 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gray (for Mr. Benson) that Bill C-259 to amend the Income Tax Act and to make certain provisions and alterations in the statute law related to or consequential upon the amendments to that act, be read the second time and referred to the committee of the whole.
Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in this debate because I feel the proposed legislation, Bill C-259, is probably one of the most important pieces of legislation that has come before this House for some considerable time. It is important first of all because it affects so many people. It affects them in a vital way inasmuch as it has an effect on the contribution they would make by way of taxation to the treasury of the country. It is important also because I believe it is the most comprehensive revision of the Income Tax law we have had since 1917, almost 54 years ago.
I can only express regret that legislation as important as this is expressed in such involved, complicated and technical language that it is practically impossible, not only for the ordinary taxpayer who is to be affected by it but also the professional men such as chartered accountants and members of the legal profession, to understand it.

October 8, 1971
Income Tax Act
Both the Canadian association of Chartered Accountants and the Canadian Bar Association have expressed themselves as finding it very difficult to understand the full meaning of the amendments which are proposed to the income tax law. In this connection, I wish to place on the record a quotation from the remarks of Mr. R. W. Bonner, vice-chairman of MacMillan and Bloedel Ltd. of Vancouver. He made these remarks while addressing a meeting of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in Quebec City a short time ago. At that time he said:
It is an avoidable pity that the small Canadian businessman must, in addition to everything else, now learn how to do business within the terms of an all but incomprehensible Income Tax Act.
Mr. Bonner has suggested that this legislation is almost incomprehensible. I believe his view is shared certainly by the majority of the people of Canada. It is without question an extremely intricate and complicated piece of legislation. There are over 600 pages in the proposed revision. Many of the sections are phrased in language which makes them very difficult to understand. The unfortunate part of the whole situation is that if the ordinary taxpayer cannot understand the income tax legislation he must obtain, at some considerable expense to himself, professional help in preparing his income tax return. I say this places a very heavy burden on the ordinary taxpayer because he cannot afford that type of assistance. Surely, the experienced draftsmen the government has within its employ could have drafted something simpler and more easily understood. Another unfortunate circumstance so far as the complicated language of the bill is concerned is the fact that if a taxpayer does not comply with the law he is subject to very heavy penalties.
My one suggestion would be that almost immediately the Department of National Revenue, or whatever department of government is concerned, should put out an explanatory booklet written in terms which the ordinary person can understand. If a booklet which would explain the revisions to the ordinary taxpayer were available, then when the time came to prepare his income tax return under the new act it would not be necessary for him to secure professional advice. I would also suggest that if in the early stages errors are made in completing the tax returns, penalties for honest miscalculation should not be imposed. I do not think it is unfair to ask this. I realize that tax law cannot be simple. As I said before, however, I cannot make myself believe that the expert draftsmen the government has within its employ could not have drafted something less complicated than this bill.
The minister and the government are to be congratulated for taking into account the many representations which have been made by Canadian taxpayers and by members of the opposition during the extended debate in the House on the original white paper, as well as many of the representations made by members of the opposition before the committee which studied the bill. I believe the government should be commended for this.
The government would have us believe the bill represents tax reform. If one examines the bill carefully, I believe it would be difficult to reach any conclusion other than that there are very few reforms in it. In my opinion, the bill does not represent tax reform. It represents reform in some respects inasmuch as it adds to what one must report from now on in respect of one's income. For

example, unemployment insurance benefits would be taxable. Benefits paid to people taking upgrading courses and courses in trades would be taxable. One half of capital gains would be taxable. So, there is very little in the way of major tax reform within this bill. Again I wish to quote from the comments of Mr. Bonner when he addressed the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in Quebec City:
The new tax act will certainly restrict business initiative at a most inopportune time.
That, of course, should not be. Rather than restrict business initiative, the government should be trying to devise ways and means to encourage it.
I know everybody in this House, as well as everybody throughout the country, welcomes the relief, which is being extended to those in the low income tax brackets. That is a reform which should have been made many years ago. No change has been made in personal income tax exemption since 1949, a period of 22 years. We know how the value of the Canadian dollar in the hands of purchasers has deteriorated during that time. So, it is unfortunate that the government did not see fit to increase these personal exemptions a long time ago, so that they would have been concurrent with the increase in the cost of living and thus have avoided placing such a burden on Canadian taxpayers.


An hon. Member:: You could have done it when you were in office.


Melvin James McQuaid: The deductions for single people have been increased to $1,500. I would point out that, not so long ago the Economic Council of Canada said that the exemption for single persons should be $1,900. It is too bad that the government did not see fit, when making the changes, to increase exemptions for single people to $1,900 or even to $2,000. Exemptions for married people, it is true, have been increased to $2,850, but again the Economic Council of Canada said that the very minimum on which a married person can get along today is $3,000. So, I say that it is unfortunate that the observations of the Economic Council of Canada could not have been complied with and these allowances increased accordingly.
The present allowances for dependent children are certainly out of line with the actual cost of feeding, clothing and educating a child. These exemptions could have been increased. I challenge anybody to try to feed, clothe and educate a child today on the allowed exemption of $300 a year. Bursaries in excess of $500 are being taxed. This is most unfair. These bursaries should not be subject to tax because we know the tremendous expense involved in sending a boy or a girl to university today, and they have to be sent to university to enable them to compete in our business world today. I think it is most unfair that bursaries in excess of $500 should be taxable. It is also unfair that a student who obtains paid employment during the summer months should have to pay income tax on the amount he earns because he is merely trying to assist his parents in educating him. Every encouragement should be given him because, if he goes to college and graduates, he comes out a better man and has a better opportunity of contributing to the welfare of this country.
October 8, 1971

It is unfortunate that no change was made to the sales tax imposed on building materials. That sales tax constitutes a heavy burden for a man with a small income who is trying to provide a house for himself and his family. Every encouragement should be given to that person to build a house of his own, but the government has taken the opposite view and has refused to remove the sales tax on building materials.
I am quite confident that three sections in the proposed bill will cause the government a great deal of difficulty, namely, sections 135, 136 and 137 which, if you examine them carefully, practically ring the death knell for cooperatives and credit unions in Canada today. The provision in the bill for taxation on employed capital will severely interfere with the freedom and the ability of co-operatives to distribute their earnings as patronage refunds. A co-operative is a business owned by its members, and in most co-operatives the members receive a share of the savings which have accumulated over the years. That is a very worth-while project. The proposed bill-and this is the unfortunate part of it-requires the co-operatives to pay tax on an amount equal to 5 per cent of the members' capital employed, and the co-operatives will therefore have to limit the return of savings to members in order to avoid reducing their taxable income below this amount. I understand that in Canada today there are approximately 3,000 co-operatives with a membership close to two million. This proposed change will have a very serious effect on businesses and on the two million Canadians who belong to co-operatives.
These co-operatives are user-owned. For example, agricultural co-operatives are owned by the farmers, fishermen's co-operatives are owned by the fishermen and housing co-operatives are owned by those people who build their own houses. The same applies to credit unions. Co-operatives and credit unions have actually encouraged thousands of people in the ways of thrift and saving. They are operated for service in most cases and not for profit, and nothing must be done by this or any other government to kill or even cripple that very worth-while movement.
The same thing applies to credit unions. Credit unions have been content over the years to remain small, community type organizations. They make virtually non-profit loans to their members. Under the present law their assets are taxed only when they are distributed among the members, but under the new proposal in the bill before us this tax exemption status will be taken away and members of the credit unions will be pushed into establishing a full-fledged banking operation. I say that that is most unfortunate because these businesses are not now operated for profit but for the benefit of their members.
I realize that a government must have money to run the affairs of the country, but I suggest very seriously that if this government practised a little economy in certain aspects of its operations it could very well carry on without any increased taxation proposed in the present bill. I was amazed to learn, from information put out not so long ago by the Department of Supply and Services, of examples of what appears to me to be a tremendous waste of taxpayers' money. I want to put just a few of those on the record. A contract was granted not so long ago to the Mallory Battery Company Limited in the amount of
Income Tax Act
$39,025 for batteries for hearing aids. I suggest that $39,000 buys a great number of hearing aid batteries, and I hope that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the members of his government will tune up their own hearing aids so that they will be able to hear the cries of the
500,000	people who are unemployed today and so that they will hear the cries of the potato producers of this country who are faced with a disastrous year by reason of the imposition of the recent U.S. surtax. I hope they will hear the cries of the Atlantic provinces where the per capita income of our people is far below the national average.
Again, a contract in the amount of $61,813 was granted to the Dominion Magnesium Company for tent poles.


Mr. Mahoney:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The amendment by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) was disposed of yesterday, and we are now on the motion for second reading and reference of the tax bill to committee of the whole. Under the circumstances, I wonder if it would not be in order to direct remarks to the tax bill rather than to the general state of the economy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The point raised by the hon. parliamentary secretary is well taken, although the Chair is not in a position to judge the last part of the speech made by the hon. member who had the floor because the Chair did not hear it. But I may take this opportunity to invite hon. members to follow the rule of relevancy as much as possible. When Mr. Speaker accepted the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) it was understood then that it would enlarge the scope of the debate at that time. I would, therefore, invite hon. members to limit their remarks to the bill, and not deal with the whole problem of the economy of the country.


Melvin James McQuaid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that my remarks are relevant because we are dealing with government tax proposals, and I am suggesting how money can be saved. I contend that our scope now, since the amendment has been disposed of, is much wider than when we were discussing the amendment. I know these figures are not too appetizing to the government, but I think they should be placed on the record.
There is a reference here to an amount of $61,813 to Dominion Magnesium for tent poles. I suppose the government expects to be driven into the woods by the next election and wants to have its tents put up now, but it seems to me that this is a lot of money for tent poles.
Then, there is a contract in the amount of $21,151 to the Dixon Pencil Company for correcting fluid. That is enough correcting fluid to fill the swimming pool at the YMCA. And there is another amount of $12,000 for rubber erasers. I know it will take a lot of correcting fluid and rubber erasers to wipe out all the mistakes that the government has made.
Then, there is a contract to Safety Distributor Products in the amount of $52,970 for sun glasses. I suggest that members of the government had better take off their dark glasses so they can see the problems and the plight of the Canadian taxpayers.

October 8, 1971
Income Tax Act
Then there is an amount of $18,637 to Major Sales Distributors for flashlights and $48,154 for gasoline lanterns. I suppose these are needed to lead the government out of the darkness.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howard (Okanagan Boundary) is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Howard (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the hon. member's speech, and I find it very difficult to relate it to the tax bill before the House. It seems to me that we should follow the rule of relevancy, which is such a well-known and established rule of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I am sure the hon. member heard the remarks made by the Chair a few moments ago, again inviting hon. members who want to participate in this debate to observe the rule of relevancy. But at the same time, I should point out that a practice is followed that when legislation relating to supply and finances is introduced, this opens the door to a much wider range of discussion than would the introduction of an ordinary piece of legislation. Anyway, I hope that the parliamentary secretary will not insist that participants in the debate start to speak directly to definite clauses of the bill without dealing with other indirect questions that are related to them. It would be very difficult for the Chair to impose that restriction.


Melvin James McQuaid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. These are the very reasons the government has found it advisable not to introduce real tax reform. It cannot introduce real tax reform when there is waste and extravagance such as I am citing here. However, I will not embarrass members of the government too much longer. There are just one or two other items that I want to bring to the attention of the Canadian people.
I cite a contract to Biltmore Hats Limited in the amount of $40,775 for felt hats, and a later contract in the amount of $18,430 for felt hats. I suggest that all this is evidence of gross extravagance, and there are thousands of other indications of the same thing. If the government would try to practice a little economy it could very well introduce real tax reform through this bill, something that would give real relief to the people of Canada. This would be welcomed by both sides of this House, and by all Canadian citizens.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid) on many of his remarks opposing some aspects of this proposed tax reform. I had not intended to step into the debate at this time, mainly because I am neither a lawyer nor a tax expert. But having listened to other hon. members, having talked to lawyers, and having watched tax experts on television decry the fact that this massive document is mainly confusing verbiage, I decided that I was just as qualified as several other hon. members to speak on it. As the hon. member for Cardigan has pointed out, and as many tax experts across Canada have pointed out, this bill really should be rewritten. It should be put

into language that most of us can understand. The taxpayers themselves should be able to understand it.
The other reason that I decided to enter the debate at this time was that I could not allow the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) to try to sell this bill as tax reform. There are some aspects of the bill that are welcomed by me and other opposition members, but in the main it is merely a patch job on a series of patch jobs that were undertaken over the years, principally by Liberal tax authorities and ministers of finance.
I wish to mention some of the aspects of the bill which I find repugnant. Very few people who have taken part in the debate so far have mentioned the effect that the bill will have on rural Canada, particularly on dairy farmers and beef farmers. The changes proposed in the bill will phase out what is commonly referred to as the basic herd. Farmers have come to look upon basic herds as capital assets, and upon their disposal they should be looked upon as capital gains as of 1972. But according to this bill the basic herd is to be phased out, so when the herd is sold the revenue will be taxed as income, which means it will be taxed 100 per cent and not 50 per cent under the proposed capital gains tax. Perhaps for the older farmer who can establish a fairly high but fair market price as of December 31, 1971, this will not rest too hard upon him. However, for the young farmer starting out it will be pretty much of an intolerable burden to be taxed on the total amount.
There are other aspects of the bill that I find extremely debatable, and the first of these is the much touted improvements in the basic personal income tax exemptions. This is the area the government thinks it can exploit to get votes, when it gets the courage to face the people after a couple of years of economic bungling, and wandering in the economic wilderness while tens of thousands of people have been forced through unemployment on to the welfare rolls, for which the working people in low income brackets can no longer afford to pay.
Just how significant are these so-called reforms in terms of dollars? I congratulate the government on eliminating nearly one million people from the tax rolls. This move is long overdue. Just how much better off will the average factory, office or construction worker be?
Let us look at the figures. To begin with, Mr. Speaker, there will be higher exemptions for low and middle income earners. On the surface this appears to be great reform. But, echoing the words of the hon. member who spoke prior to me, why has it taken the government 22 years to update the personal income tax exemption? The last changes occurred in 1949. The value of the Canadian dollar has been greatly inflated since that time. So, really what the government is doing is simply bringing tax exemptions into line with what they should have been a few years ago.
Let us look at the figures. A married man with two children earning $4,000 a year, and tragic it is that many men are still in this wage category, paid $210 in income tax under the old system. In 1972 he will pay about $73. This amounts to a gain of about $2.60 a week. What a fantastic gift from such a benevolent government! Let us look at the $8,000 a year wage or salary earner, with a wife
October 8, 1971

and two children. Under the old system of taxation he would pay about $1,215 in personal income taxes. Under the new bill he will pay $1,089, a saving of $2.42 a week. Another "big deal". The wage or salary earner making $12,000 a year will gain an extra $1 a week.
But let us not forget that the wage or salary earner will be paying income tax on his unemployment insurance benefits in 1972. His medicare premiums are adversely affected as well. Any money contributed to a public medicare plan on an employee's behalf will become taxable income. This means that if an employer contributes sixty-six and two-thirds of the OHSIP premium, this amount will be taxable income for the worker. In addition to this, scholarships or bursaries over $500 that a son or daughter might receive will be taxable. And finally, a worker's union dues are included in his "huge" $150 work costs exemption.
This brings me to another important point, the double standard being perpetrated by this so-called tax reform bill. The ordinary factory or construction worker who is lucky enough to have 12 months work, has many expenses that certainly cost more than $150. For example, I was talking to a bricklayer in my riding who travels an average of ten miles to and from work each day. Gasoline and depreciation on his automobile alone amount to approximately $500 a year, yet he is only allowed the $150 basic exemption for legitimate work expenses. But the professional who is allowed, I believe, two conventions a year can write off hundreds of dollars for each. Again, I emphasize the double standard.
In the few minutes remaining before we recess for lunch I should like to mention the section dealing with credit unions and I should like to look at it from a personal point of view as well as the point of view of the people in my riding. To begin with, credit unions are a people's movement. Most of them were born during the depression and have survived because of the free time and work donated in many cases, particularly in the small credit unions, by those dedicated to their purpose. The purpose of the credit union movement of course is manyfold. You can borrow or you can save, but certainly one reason people are proud of their credit unions is that they are able to escape the loan sharks and the finance companies.
In my riding there are 38 credit unions with approximately 13,000 members. If these credit unions are taxed, Mr. Speaker, probably only two or three will survive because only three have assets of over $500,000. In 1970, the total assets of all credit unions in the Brantford area amounted to $7.7 million. This is another example of double taxation. Members already pay taxes on their dividends and on any earnings that may accrue to them from the credit union, so I implore the Minister of Finance to reconsider clause 137 of the bill and to exclude from taxation at least the smaller credit unions, those with assets of less than half a million dollars. If these small credit unions are taxed they will not be able to pay dividends of 4 per cent or 5 per cent but will be reduced to paying perhaps 2 per cent on dividends.
When discussing credit unions we should also recall that members receive a 10 per cent rebate on borrowings, something which one does not get from the bank or fiance companies. In short, Mr. Speaker, credit unions are notin business to make a profit; they are in business to serve the
Income Tax Act
interests of their membership. I am quite sure that no person, at least in the province of Ontario, has ever lost a cent as a result of the failure of a credit union. There have been no Atlantic Acceptance fiascos in the credit union movement.
Another important aspect of this movement, Mr. Speaker, is that during lay-offs, illness, plant shutdowns-even during strikes-often the interest on borrowings is lifted. Until the member is back to work interest is not reapplied to the loan. Where else can one get this treatment? At finance companies and banks? I do not think so. Seventy percent of the interest earned goes to shareholders of credit unions. Credit unions also provide ancillary services which are very important such as family economic counselling, which is free of charge. The basic interest here, of course, is to attempt to put people back on the road to financial security, and I think this is a very important aspect of the movement as a whole.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair to resume the same at 2 o'clock p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, before the luncheon adjournment, I was referring to what I considered to be the unjust proposed tax that would affect the credit union movement in Canada. I was saying that the credit union movement is a people's movement, a movement in many respects born of and nurtured by ordinary, individual Canadians for a common cause and a common purpose. I should now like to continue with my remarks relating to this aspect and to one or two other aspects.
The provinces demand that credit unions have guarantee funds which are reserves for doubtful accounts. The present basis for providing for the guarantee fund is to transfer a fixed percentage of yearly earnings. Generally, provision is made to reduce or eliminate the transfer required when the fund reaches a certain percentage of the total amount of members' shares and deposits. To my knowledge and information, there is no evidence that these reserves are excessive.
The most that the government of Canada can expect to realize in this area would result from a tax on whatever amount of reserves are considered to be excessive. As these reserves are created by provincial legislation and not by management decision, it seems reasonable to assume that the tax revenue would be gained at a future time when the reserve is reduced and the funds distributed to members by way of dividend. In effect, then, the government would simply have received an interest free loan of an insignificant amount from the credit union movement. When one considers that the proposed tax change will inconvenience credit unions and in fact lead to exorbitant tax burdens on the small credit unions, one wonders why the government is so bent on crippling this very essential and socially acceptable movement. Could it

October 8, 1971
Income Tax Act
be that the powerful chartered bank lobby is a little upset by the fact that the credit unions of this country are now in No. 2 position in the small loans field.
Another criticism I have, Mr. Speaker, of Bill C-259 relates to the elimination of the federal estate tax. Here, again, I want to impress on hon. members opposite that this reveals the double standard approach to taxation. Obviously, only the wealthy, and particularly the very wealthy, are concerned about estate taxes, for the poor and lower middle income groups have little to leave except memories. I am not opposed to individual enterprise and I am not opposed to rugged individualism. As a classroom history teacher I have always had the greatest respect for the pioneers who came to this country and developed a way of life that is most commendable. Yet we often confuse the rugged individualism of that era with the protected individualism of today, and here we find a double standard. It is estimated that 80 per cent of those in this nation who are very wealthy have inherited their wealth. In other words, this inheritance in many instances is a passport to the easy life. Of course, we cannot blame them for this. They have inherited their wealth because our laws permit that. We cannot call such people economic parasites, because what they inherit they usually invest, and they live off their investments. Yet I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that they do absolutely nothing in many cases to earn any of their inheritance and that they contribute virtually nothing to the development of this country. While they masquerade as rugged individualists trying to protect the extremeties of the free enterprise system, they are simply living the good life off somebody else's hard work. I suggest that the elimination of the federal estate tax is simply contributing to this kind of non-effort on the part of some very wealthy people in this country. In other words, Bill C-259 is simply protecting these people and protracting their lives, which I would call somewhat useless.
What about imposing a 100 per cent estate tax, so that we can all start out on a truly equal level. Then, we should find who really are the rugged individualists of this country. Then we should find which of us really has the gumption to do something with his life and to create better living standards for his family. An estate tax like that would mean that the kids in St. James town, Toronto, would enjoy the same advantages, economically speaking, as the kids in Forest Hill. Of course, in the present circumstances that would be unthinkable. However, I am not seriously considering a 100 per cent estate tax. I realize that in many instances, in fact, in most instances, a dying man or woman has a spiritual need to pass on his or her material possessions to someone else.
There is one final point I wish to make. It has to do with parents of children who are physically disabled. There are thousands of children in this country who are born with physical deformities. A large percentage of them live in small communities or in rural areas where medical facilities are not sufficient to cope with their physical needs. It is often necessary for the parents of these children to travel long distances to metropolitan areas, Vancouver, Winnipeg and so on, or even, sometimes, to cities in the United States, in order to find specialist medical treat-

ment. In the course of these journeys they incur very high costs in travelling expenses, overnight accommodation, dining in restaurants, and so on. Sometimes they are away for as long as a week. I am wondering whether some tax concession cannot be made to these parents who must face special financial problems of the kind I have mentioned, in addition to the normal heavy burden of taxation.
I have drawn attention to some of the aspects of this bill to which I am opposed. I have talked about the credit unions. I have talked about the people who have been granted the vast sum of a $150 tax write-off to cover legitimate costs incurred in their work. And I have drawn attention to one or two other points which I feel are pertinent to the average Canadian, particularly to those who will save $2.50 a week as a result of the new basic tax exemptions. When we come to committee of the whole, and discuss the bill clause by clause, I shall have more to say about these matters.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak on Bill C-259, entitled an act to amend the Income Tax Act and to make certain provisions and alterations in the statute law related to or consequent upon the amendments to that Act.
The Income Tax reform bill is a document containing 707 pages, a weighty, complex tome which will directly affect the daily lives of every man, woman and child in Canada. It affects them indirectly, too, in that it reaches into the factories, stores, banks and corporate headquarters to stimulate or hinder progress. In so far as it stimulates corporate and individual enterprise, it may be considered helpful. In so far as it cramps, paralyzes or hampers initiative, it is a foolish measure.
In my opinion, taxes are to serve the people, to enable them to get along with as small a government apparatus as they need. Neither government nor taxes are ends in themselves. They are a means to an end, namely, the proper development of the national life. Whenever they become an unreasonable burden on families or individuals they restrict economic freedom, curtail democracy and generate apathy and laziness. The Income Tax reform bill is, therefore, a vital bill. Yet, allowing five minutes for the reading of each page, a person would need some 58 hours to pass through this maze. At most, a busy Member of Parliament might be able to spare five hours daily for such a task, almost 12 days. But 12 days would not be enough, since even tax experts profess to be confused and uncertain about the complexities of the measure.
The income tax reform bill is the product of almost nine years of commission hearings, public discussion, protest and, finally, distillation by scores of legal and fiscal experts who decide how much of his income the man in the street is to be allowed to keep. It has been calculated that Canadians work well into May each calendar year merely to gain enough to pay the manifold taxes levied on them by all levels of government. In a sense, therefore, they work five months of every year in order to pay the tax collector.
As I said a few moments ago, this is a very complex measure. This viewpoint has been endorsed by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce which used the follow-
October 8, 1971

ing words in a brief to the government early in September:
We regret that it has been found necessary to express the new law in language so involved that it will be difficult for many taxpayers to understand their own tax position and to be able to complete and file their own returns without professional assistance.
I emphasize the last few words, Mr. Speaker, "without professional assistance". Some may doubt whether even professional help will solve the problem.
The Financial Times reports that the common complaint from the private sector, so far, has been that the bill is badly worded and too unwieldy for even taxation experts to understand quickly. One of the nation's foremost tax experts, Lancelot J. Smith, President of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, described the bill in these words:
The most complex and formidable piece of tax legislation ever put before parliament.
In spite of a lifetime as a tax practitioner, Mr. Smith told the annual meeting of the institute in Winnipeg: "The intricacies of Bill C-259 have so far eluded my grasp." "If this is so with my background", he added, "God help the general practitioner." Mr. Smith was chairman of the Ontario Tax Reform Commission.
Another financial expert, Vincent Egan, Financial Editor of the Toronto Telegram, wrote in that newspaper on September 10:
The new tax reforms will result in a more complicated, patched up system than ever before. If it's a joke, it's not funny! If it is not, then Mr. Benson, and his draftsmen, must be prepared, even at this late date, to simplify it wherever possible.
The Canadian Bar Association finds Bill C-259 as puzzling as do the accountants. The Globe and Mail of September 3, reports:
Finance Minister Edgar Benson's tax reform legislation is complex, difficult, confusing and a let-down.
Delegates heard 17 papers containing more than 120,000 words on various aspects of the legislation and the Association's special committee on the tax reform bill intends to make representations to Mr. Benson.
Ronald D. Bell of Calgary said if the new bill's concepts are difficult of comprehension, they seem remarkably clear compared with the language construction which purports to convey same to the Canadian public. Lawyers entering the taxation field periodically would find it absolutely impossible from reading the bill to obtain a working knowledge of the new system. The government should not have released the tax reforms until the new concepts had been put in clear language.
Another lawyer, John D. Smith of Vancouver, said the bill was immensely complicated and written in unfamiliar language and concepts. It was drafted with "so much use of definitions and cross-references that the drafter must have been raised on the game of Snakes and Ladders".


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: If the hon. member who interjects will sit and listen-
Income Tax Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is rising on a point of order.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: I just want to point out, in the absence of the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, that the hon. member is reading his speech.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: No, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not reading his speech. The hon. member is reading quotations from those who have condemned this tax reform bill which is presently before the House. If the parliamentary secretary had been listening to these condemnations he would have realized the concern of tax experts and economists across the country over the maze that has been introduced under the guise of tax reform.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I have the floor, Mr. Speaker. When I have finished my remarks I will answer any questions that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce would like to put to me.
What are we being asked to do now? Parliament is being asked to pass this maze of tax changes quickly, so quickly that they can become law by January 1, 1972. In my opinion, haste in passing this massive change, haste in imposing fresh new tax burdens on Canadians at this time, is unseemly. I believe that in these days of heavy unemployment and the stifling of enterprise by taxation, the members of this House have a prime duty to see that these tax dollars are spent wisely. This raises the question: Why does the present government require all these additional funds? Are these funds being properly spent by the administration? Are they being properly utilized? After all, we are not fighting a war at the present time, and our population has not exceeded 22 million people. We cannot help but wonder just where all the money is going.
For the answer to these questions, we need turn only to the Auditor General's report for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1970, and in doing so we become painfully aware of the waste and extravagance of this government, whose spending spiral continues skyward like a moon rocket. It would be too painful to read the entire report, but I shall single out some items that clearly indicate why the present government stands condemned for its wasteful practices and why it must continue to dig deeper and deeper into the pockets of the average Canadian taxpayer.
For example, at page 11 of the report we read under item 18, headed: "Communications", that the listed increase in departmental expenditures, exclusive of the Post Office, was largely due to an increase of $3.2 million, or 28 per cent, in administration, operation and maintenance costs. The increase of $21 million that was authorized for the post office was due primarily to an increase of $11 million in salaries and allowances and $9 million in mail conveyance costs. Then, there is a little addendum which says that these expenditures do not include retroactive salary adjustments of $3.9 million paid during the year and charged to the reserve for salary revisions.

October 8, 1971
Income Tax Act
Then, under item 19 dealing with consumer and corporate affairs we read that the increase in expenditure included $1.2 million, or 22 per cent, spent by the corporate affairs division and $307,000, or 26 per cent, spent by combines investigation and research. Then, the report goes on to add that, in addition, the expenses of the Prices and Incomes Commission, established during the year, were $569,000. Again, there is a little addendum which states that these figures do not include retroactive salary adjustments of $1.5 million paid during the year and charged to the reserve for salary revisions.
So the expenses of the Prices and Incomes Commission amounted to $569,000. This commission ran around the country, after its appointment, like an old dog without any teeth: it could bark but it could not bite. Its recommendations had about as much backbone as a wet fishnet. The commission could get no agreement from labour and very little agreement from industry. On its own admission, it was a failure. The government has neither abolished the commission nor strengthened it. Today, it becomes just one more barnacle on our ship of state, one more barnacle holding back the progress of this nation and causing increases in income tax of the sort contained in this voluminous bill which can only add to the burden of our people. This is what we object to today. Is it, therefore, any wonder that the government must continually raise more money to pay for its wasteful and foolish extravagances ?


Mr. Boulanger:: Oh!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Someone says "oh". It is obvious that Liberal members do not like to hear the truth as told by the Auditor General; they do not like to listen to the facts as they stand. There is no denying the wasteful extravagances that are listed in the report of the Auditor General.
Under item 20 on page 11 of his report, which deals with the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, we read of retroactive salary adjustments amounting to $5 million which were not included in the expenditures for the year.
Under the Department of External Affairs, we note that its expenditure increased by $12 million. This does not include retroactive salary adjustments of $1.7 million paid during the year and charged to the reserve for salary revisions.
Under the Department of Finance, we read that the increase in outstanding bonds and treasury bills, as well as the higher interest rates of recent issues, largely accounted for the increase of $237 million, or 16 per cent, in public debt charges. All this in one year, Mr. Speaker! In addition, there is an item of $123 million which was recorded as a loan to the Canadian Corporation for Expo '67, which was written off as a loss under the Expo Winding-up Act.
I believe it is fair to state that, successful as Expo '67 may have been from many points of view, this debt of $123 million ended up as a direct charge on the Canadian taxpayer who had to foot the bill. Is it any wonder that we need a whole new tax structure in order to pay for the waste and extravagance of this Liberal government? In retrospect, I suppose that we should be grateful the deficit is not larger in view of the open-ended spending practices adopted by this government. There was no real planning

for this exposition, only open-ended spending. When this exposition is contrasted with the one that recently terminated in Japan, where it was reported that there was a profit of some $35 million, we see the difference between planning and an uncaring and unconscionable government.
Again under the Department of Finance's expenditures as detailed in the Auditor General's report we read that the expenditure does not include retroactive salary adjustments of $907,000-almost $1 million-paid during the year and charged to the reserve for salary revisions.
What is the position as far as the Department of Labour is concerned? As a result of this government's policy of letting a little slack develop in the economy, its policy of letting unemployment rise under the excuse that this would aid the fight against inflation, we learn that Canada's contribution to the Unemployment Insurance fund last year amounted to $12 million, up 14 per cent. This $12 million came from the pockets of the taxpayers in addition to the regular unemployment insurance contributions made by Canadian workers. This government has not won its fight against unemployment or against inflation. Our economic picture today is a horrible example of what can happen to a country that is led by people devoid of any forward looking policies or programs, a country that has an arrogant, uncaring and incompetent government which, if it had any decency, would resign.
There is another little addendum under the item dealing with the Department of Manpower and Immigration which again deals with salary adjustments. These addenda are found at the end of each item. In this case, we read that almost $7 million was not included in the department's expenditures.
Let us look at the expenditures of the Department of National Defence. This was a department which was unified by the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer), who now heads "Action Canada", a political movement to recover the Liberal party from the Socialists who infiltrated its ranks and took it over from within. We were told unification would save the taxpayers money. According to the Auditor General, last year there was a net increase of $34 million in expenditures for defence services. There was also an increase of $12 million in the amortization of the deferred charges resulting from actuarial adjustments in the Canadian Armed Forces superannuation account. This department spent $1,790 million last year, and this figure does not include $12.1 million paid during the year and charged to the reserve for salary revisions.
What did we get for these increased expenditures? Our NATO forces have been decimated in Europe through unilateral withdrawal under the Liberal government, and generally our prestige and our defence profile is lower around the world today, yet our costs are higher. This is the thread that runs throughout every department of this government, namely higher costs for less service. In the Department of National Health and Welfare, there was an increase in expenditures of $290 million, not including expenditures by the Medical Research Council or amounts expended on scholarship and research grants.
In the Department of Public Works, general administration expenses alone increased by $3.1 million, up 15 per
October 8, 1971

cent, while the increased drain on the resources of the Canadian taxpayers is only too evident, no matter how you look at these figures. I could go on and on.


Mr. Reid:: You are.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Yes, and with good reason. I could point out a number of expenses of this nature. CBC costs alone climbed last year to $170,673,547. They were up from the year before when they stood at $159 million. When I was first elected to the House of Commons in 1957, the expenditures required for the CBC amounted to $52 million. At that time the figure sounded high, in fact it represented $1 million per week. I remember at that time making a speech about this amount of $52 million because I thought it was a lot of money. If $52 million seemed to be a lot of money in 1957 you can naturally imagine what I think about the expenditure of an amount of $170 million less than 15 years later.
In the Secretary of State's department, we see an increase in the figures, the one I have just quoted, and an addendum. There was a further increase of $1.7 million or 36 per cent in expenditures of the bureau for translation. The $1.7 million was spent on the cultural development program for which there was no counterpart in 1969. Those amounts are higher in the current year.
I should like to point out the colossal waste of this government. The government paid $57,000 in the past two years to the Seigniory Club. That is the swank club which is 60 miles east of here, used for departmental meetings. This galls me tremendously.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Does it?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) says: "Does it"? It should gall him, Sir. If it does not, it is time he became aware of what is happening in this government. Obviously, the minister does not care and has no intention of taking any action to change these wasteful extravagances. This is what happens-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Could we have a little order in the chamber, Mr. Speaker? Twenty government departments and agencies have used this Canadian Pacific Hotel for such meetings. A government spokesman said that the reason government departments used the club for departmental conferences was so that officials would not be bothered by telephone calls and other interruptions to which they would be subjected if the meetings were held in Ottawa. I should like to ask any one of the cabinet ministers, what is wrong with the various committee rooms we have here on Parliament Hill? Why can they not be made available so that some of these wasteful extravagances can be avoided?
I could go on and on in the same way in respect of other departments.


An hon. Member:: You probably will.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: If I did, I would be able to point out to you examples similar to the ones I have given. The figures I have quoted represent the cause behind the spiralling of taxation which climbs always upwards.
Income Tax Act
The increased drain on the resources of the Canadian taxpayer are evident when you consider the following figures which show the increase of consolidated government revenues, federal, provincial and local, between the years 1960-61 and 1970-71, as listed by the Department of Finance based on the Dominion Bureau of Statistics financial management series of publications. In 1960-61, the total paid to federal, provincial and local governments in personal income tax, corporate income tax, estates tax and succession duties, sales tax and other revenues net of transfers totalled $9,722 million. In 1970-71, this figure had increased to $28,465 million, up $18,743 million in a period of 10 years. A close examination of these figures reveals that personal income tax revenue received by all levels of government has multiplied by 4.5 times in 10 years. Corporation tax has more than doubled its take, as has estate tax and succession duties, while sales tax reaped in a harvest in the last fiscal year 3.5 times larger than that of 10 years ago.
I cannot help but wonder whether the incomes of Canadians, from which these taxes to three levels of government must be paid, have doubled or multiplied by 3.5 times in the last 10 years. The answer is no, certainly not, at least not in the Atlantic provinces and in other depressed areas of this nation.
My main criticism of Bill C-259 is its complexities and the fact that it places new and heavier burdens on Canadians generally, as well as on Canadian industry. There are other aspects of this bill which are causing concern and fear among Canadians. Our farmers and others involved in the co-operative movements contend that never in the history of this movement has there been legislation so damaging to the interests of co-operatives. Clayton Sinclair, writing in the Financial Times of September 13 said:
The basic change for credit unions .. . will be the removal of their tax exempt status. Until now, their assets were taxed only when distributed among members. The legislation will add an initial bite at the predistribution level.
What about the effect on the provinces? The validity and success of this tax reform bill is very much comprised by the lack of comprehension and co-operation of the government toward the tax problems and functions of the provinces. The government has failed to introduce a tax reform which integrates the taxing function and resources of the three levels of government. This is a bill that has reduced rather than expanded the taxing base of the provinces. It is a bill that will put in doubt provincial revenues for the next five years. Those are the effects as I understand them.
Some of the provinces have expressed concern about the proposed elimination of federal estate and gift taxes on January 1, 1972. They have indicated that this proposal will not only create inequities between the taxation of existing wealth accumulations and future wealth accumulations but will thrust the burden of readjustment, if provincial revenue loss is to be avoided, entirely on to the provinces. All these factors require co-ordination of federal and provincial tax policies and make an assessment of the economic impact of the proposed legislation difficult. At the same time, we are concerned that the intention of the Ontario government to give tax credits for provincial sales tax and municipal taxes, and not to provide the 15
8566

October 8, 1971
Income Tax Act
per cent additional capital cost allowance introduced by the federal government in its December 1970 budget, are indicative of a trend toward separate provincial tax administrations and policies. Such a trend is, I think, most undesirable and I urge the federal government to co-ordinate tax policy and administration with the provinces.
This bill is further evidence of the lack of government planning. Under this legislation, money is being siphoned off from the private sector without leaving the worker, the businessman or the entrepreneur enough incentive to set themselves reasonable goals so that they will derive some lasting benefits from the fruits of their toil. There must surely be a set of long-term priorities established as a basis for tax policy. Reform may be necessary, but the winds of reform must not leave the Canadian taxpayer like a shorn lamb more exposed than ever to the rigours of a climate which is becoming more inhospitable for private initiative. I believe my views on this legislation are somewhat comparable to those expressed by William A. MacDonald, who stated at the annual meeting of the Canadian Bar Association in September 1971:
With regret I have concluded that the new bill represents a giant step backwards in relation to the deepest political issue of our times-the continued possibility of maintaining freedom-under the law-as the unique characteristic of the western political tradition.
To the need for maintaining freedom in our country I would add that there is a basic need to maintain confidence in our country. This government cannot continue to endlessly nibble away at the operating framework of Canadian business with such things as tax reforms, the Canada Development Corporation and the proposed competition act, plus other socialistic, bureaucratic acts which hamstring and interfere with the free enterprise system. That is my feeling. Is it any wonder when you look at the new tax act, and the manner in which this government has overloaded Canadian taxpayers and Canadian industry, that Canadian business has this year been hesitant to invest in new job-creating capital ventures? Why are we not going forward? There is no shortage, as I read the Financial Post, the Financial Times and other such papers, in this country of investment capital. In fact, there is more encouragement given by financial institutions to borrow money today than ever before. Why are we not going forward; what is lacking in this country today? The answer that is coming through to everyone and which should be coming through even to those who sit on your right, Mr. Speaker, and occupy the treasury benches, is that Canadians lack confidence in this government.
That is the problem. They lack confidence in a government whose failures do not provide sufficient incentive to our Canadian businessmen so that they will invest in new plants and in new equipment. This is why we keep suggesting and we keep asking for tax cuts. I believe tax cuts would stimulate both business investment and consumer demand and should, therefore, be implemented immediately. To do this, however, the government would have to cut down on its own wasteful handouts, cut down on its own extravagance. This government has demonstrated its generosity in giving handouts, both where the need is real and many times where the need is questionable. However, it has not to date demonstrated its ability to deal with

such fundamental needs as creating a climate for honest work, sound business investment and stable prices. Yet these are basic values which must be encouraged if we are to get our economy rolling again and provide employment and real opportunities for our people.
What are our export people, those engaged in exporting goods in this country, saying today? As a member of the Board of Governors of Waterloo Lutheran University, I receive from time to time articles covering statements made at the various teaching seminars at that university. Mr. E. Cayley Hill, a Goderich businessman accompanied the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) on his recent mission to the People's Republic of China.


Jean-Luc Pepin: A very fine gentleman.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The minister interjects to say that he is a very fine gentleman. With that I concur, and I hope that the minister will listen carefully to what I am about to read concerning that very fine gentleman's views as expressed at Waterloo Lutheran University. Mr. Hill told a class of students and businessmen on Tuesday October 5 that Canada needs exports to continue the expansion of its economy. The news report I have reads:
Speaking to a session in international marketing, a seminar series at Waterloo Lutheran University arranged by Dr. Herman Overgaard, professor of international business, Mr. Hill said:
"Canada needs 2,600,000 new jobs in the 1970's making it crucial that Canada broaden its economic goals and diversify into every feasible market in the world. We cannot afford to rely on only one market-be it the U.S. or any other country. But diversification provides the necessary continuity and stability we require when any one market is disrupted".
The world-travelling Mr. Hill is vice president and general manager of the Dominion Road Machinery Company, a firm that operates from a small Ontario town but regards the entire world as its market. Mr. Hill warned his listeners that the proposed U.S. domestic international sales corporation, usually called DISC, could become law this fall and will encourage more manufacturing for world trade within the United States at the expense of Canadian firms.
He insisted-
These are the words I want to emphasize to the minister, that in a private enterprise economic system such as exists in Canada business and not government-
Again, I emphasize that.
-should have the predominant voice. Only through better business practices, better policing of our own activities, can we bring the initiative back where it belongs.
The only way this can happen, he said, was for the individual businessman, as well as business associations, to improve their record and insist that they are in fact more competent to manage their affairs than is 'big government'. Industry must make itself heard and government should listen.
Those are his words, and I hope the government will take them to heart. This government is now well into its fourth year in office and with time running out I submit that it will soon have to move forward or the Canadian people will ask that it move out.


Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, the other day while going through some documents of the Department of National Revenue, I noted with interest that until the end of July there had been income tax refunds to the extent of something like $704 million. These were for
October 8, 1971

personal income tax overpayments, and amounted to around 10 per cent of the amount the government collects in personal income taxes. It would almost seem that there was a deliberate practice of overtaxing, but I think that a question of morality is involved when you have tax rebates of this extent. It is not always the government's fault. Certainly, the taxpayers do not always report changes in their circumstances, such as the birth of a child, which would increase their exemptions. Often charitable donations are not reported, and I am sure that a good many Canadians look on the business of overtaxing as a sort of enforced saving. However, this is a costly way to save and it is not convenient when you consider that it is the employer who is doing the bookwork for you. The scale of deductions is calculated to recover all the taxes owing in a given year, and on that basis the denial of the department that it is overtaxing is quite right, I think. However, the principle is wrong in practice when refunds to the extent of 10 per cent of the amount collected have to be made.
From the practical point of view, we know that it is far easier for the government to make a refund than it is to collect more taxes if the taxpayer has not paid enough. But then the question of whether the master exists for the benefit of the servant arises. I think that is the question here. Is there a law or practice hallowed by custom which requires the taxpayer to exist for the convenience of his servant, which is the government? I think it is important that we consider that concept. It is becoming all too evident these days that the servant is actually becoming the master of the people of Canada. This has become apparent in other fields also.
I have an article here which appeared in the Edmonton Journal in which Mr. McWilliam, president of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange, is quoted. He is speaking about wheat, of course, but in the same general context of whether the master exists for the benefit of the servant. It reads:
Farmers in Canada are totally dependent on bureaucrats, says J. E. McWilliam, president of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange.
And if this situation is allowed to continue, the country's farmers will be "controlled out of the world's markets."
Then, he goes on to refer to the Canadian agricultural situation which, he said:
... is totally immersed in the philosophy of the producer going to Ottawa for instructions.
Government control and regulation of farm production can only serve to hold back agriculture . . .
I think the general tenor there can be related to this overpayment of taxes. Mr. McWilliam goes on to say:
The farmer should never be put in the untenable position of having to react to the bureaucrats. It is the farmer who should decide the production.
Instead of the production decisions going from bureaucrat to minister to farmer, it must be from farmer to minister to bureaucrat.
When one applies this to the concept of taxation under which the master exists for the convenience of the servant, one finds that the question of morality arises. In so far as our free enterprise system is concerned, I would hope we would want to see it continued in this country,
Income Tax Act
although it is not evident that the government feels this way.
I think that this point has been made by the Bar Association and by many of the groups which have studied the tax bill. They feel that the language of the present tax bill is far too complicated for the layman to comprehend. Let me read what the Canadian Bar Association had to say about this. One can well imagine that if lawyers have difficulty in interpreting the act a layman does not have much chance. Ronald D. Bell of Calgary says:
... if the new bill's concepts are "difficult of comprehension, they seem remarkably clear compared with the language construction which purports to convey same to the Canadian public".
Mr. Bell said lawyers entering the taxation field periodically will find "it absolutely impossible from reading the bill to obtain a working knowledge of the new system".
The government should not have released details of the proposed tax reforms until the new concepts had been put in clear language, he said.
Here we have a lawyer saying that lawyers who go into the tax field periodically will have a great deal of difficulty in comprehending the tax bill. I suggest that we can all foresee great problems arising from a tax bill which cannot be interpreted by citizens of average intelligence. Certainly, this business of having something that is mysterious, of language that no one can comprehend, will never work in the long run because of the misunderstandings and the animosities that will build up toward the government and the department of internal revenue. There are many organizations that have made this point. There is another article which appeared in the Financial Post in the column by William A. MacDonald, which reads:
The bill fails to maintain an even hand between the tax administration and the taxpayer. Complexities are felt justified to protect the revenue, but are often not felt justified for fair treatment to all taxpayers.
For example, a number of items are included in income without comparable deductions, what I call reverse revenue leakage. In a number of cases, penal amounts of tax are payable out of all proportion to any assumed offence.
He is referring to the penalty clauses here. He goes on to say:
Finally, in a very few cases, there is still explicit or implicit retroactivity.
Then, he goes on to speak about the language that was referred to by the Bar Association:
Finally, and by far the most important reason, the structure and language ensures that fewer and fewer Canadians will understand less and less about a law destined to have a more than ever pervasive impact on more and more Canadians.
The result will be that where taxpayers understand the advice given them by professionals, they can be almost certain the advice is wrong. It is only if they don't understand it that there will at least be the chance that the advice may be right.
If the medium is indeed the message, only one conclusion is possible-the new tax reform is fundamentally hostile to people. It is only friendly to the computer.
I suggest that that will be a very difficult thing to live with through the years. I refer to the draftsmanship of the bill itself. There is the ever-present possibility of many interpretations. This is a matter that needs to be changed and clarified before the bill becomes law. As Canadians, we want our laws to be such that most people can understand and comply with them without needing the constant
8568

October 8, 1971
Income Tax Act
help of professional advisers. If ordinary people need the help of professional advisers to comply with the terms of this bill, the result will be that only the more affluent will be able to take advantage of some of its beneficial provisions.
The cost of compliance will be an increased cost to the economy. It will be incorporated as another business cost, to be reflected in increased prices of goods and services. Many judgments will be subject to error and ambiguity. Much damage will be done, not only to individuals but to the attitude people generally have toward the country's final authority.
Has there been sufficient consultation with the provinces and municipalities on this tax legislation? It is all right to come out with federal tax legislation specifying the exemptions, but if there has not been sufficient consultation with the provinces and municipalities to discover what their future tax needs will be, the end result may be totally unrealistic. It has been projected that costs at the municipal and provincial levels will rise at a rate many times that projected for increased taxation at the federal level. This problem is not considered at all in the legislation.
In this regard I would like to quote from the Globe and Mail of July 8 last, which reads:
One item among finance minister Edgar Benson's tax reform proposals has been largely overlooked. Since it will dip into the pockets of Ontario people for more than $58 million of federal tax money annually (and into the pockets of British Columbia and Alberta people for lesser amounts), the oversight has been rather monumental.
The proposal is that which will require employees to add to their taxable income any part of their medicare premiums whichis paid by their employers. In most cases-and that is a lot of cases in Ontario-the employer pays 50 per cent of the premium.
The proposal is about as brazenly discriminatory as could be imagined. It will discriminate in the favour of people who live in provinces that pay medical insurance costs out of general revenue instead of extracting them by way of premiums, and against people who live in provinces that levy premiums. It will discriminate in favour of people who. live in provinces that are not highly unionized, and against people who live in provinces that are highly unionized.
The net result-as anybody who understands Ottawa's prejudices will instantly recognize-will be to discriminate against the people of Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia-what Ottawa considers the have-provinces. The measure, however, will not hit Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, it will hit their people, in a heavy and unequal fashion in which it will not hit the people elsewhere in Canada.
As between taxpayer and taxpayer it is inequitable-and, it must be feared, designed to be inequitable-and that cannot be defended. It is also an invasion of provincial rights. Ottawa invaded the provincial jurisdiction in the first place when it used its taxing powers to force universal medicare on the provinces- health care being constitutionally a provincial jurisdiction. The new measure will further compel provinces to adopt a certain kind of medicare-the kind that is paid for out of general revenue. This will infuriate provinces that have instituted premiums for the philosophically defensible reason that they believe it is healthier for citizens to recognize, by paying premiums, that medical services do not come free but represent a heavy cost paid by the taxpayer.
I think it is important for us to realize that many of these services just do not fall out of heaven; they all must be paid for by someone, somewhere. This legislation has

far reaching implications for the agricultural industry. We have the matter of recapture depreciation being brought into income. In other words, where farmers used to calculate their capital cost allowances on the straight line method, this will be done away with on inception of the new act. In many instances, when farmers or ranchers take good care of costly agricultural machinery and that machinery has been fully depreciated, it still has a great deal of value. I think it is only a matter of seven years until a tractor is fully depreciated. A new tractor may cost up to $20,000, so a farmer with a well-cared for, older tractor may get a trade-in allowance of $6,000 or $7,000. Under this legislation the money he receives as trade-in will be brought into his income for tax purposes.
This is particularly unfortunate at a time when farmers are in a continuous cost-price squeeze. In many cases they receive no more for their products than they did 20 years ago. In order to keep pace they have to expand their operations and keep in touch with technological advances. As a result, they are in a very unfortunate position when faced with recapture depreciation being brought into income.
One of the other matters that I think should be reconsidered is the elimination of the basic herd. The basic herd supposedly is to be terminated by the end of this year. I feel strongly that this is an error in policy. There is real need for a system whereby the farmer can treat his investment in livestock as a capital investment. Consider for example, the problem of the farmer who wishes to take money out of capital in order to add to an existing herd. From his standpoint he has a capital asset which cannot be depreciated. The acquisition of cattle is an expense if he is on a cash basis of accounting, giving him a number of years of severe losses-which is not uncommon in the ranching areas of the foothills-which would not be corrected by the averaging system. To operate on an accrual basis with annual evaluation of the herd is totally impractical if only because the cattle market fluctuates with the availability of feed.
I suggest that we should consider a continuation of the basic herd provision in the proposed act, because farming requires more capital than ever before. Governments have been encouraging farmers to consolidate smaller units, to take advantage of technology and of every innovation. But this would put another severe strain on capital. One of the effects of the basic herd provision has been to create herds without the investment of money from outside. We need a provision that will allow livestock to be shown as a capital asset.
There is one special point which should be dealt with in respect of the valuation of the basic herd on valuation day-that of valuable breeding stock. This has become important in recent years because of the importation of many exotic breeds of cattle. Unless provision is made for deviation in respect of the valuation day concept, we shall run into difficulties. In the case of animals put into insemination centres, or imported animals requiring tests, the results of such tests alone will prove the value of the animal; therefore, there should be a provision for later determination of valuation day value on that basis.
October 8, 1971

I believe the matter of the family farm corporation needs review. In the last decade an increasing number of farmers have sought to hold their financial position and guarantee continuity as a basic family farm enterprise, and some have incorporated with this in mind. We should make certain that any provisions which are applicable to the individual farmer are also applicable to the family farm corporation. There are, of course, farming corporations to which this would not apply but there could be a provision which would tie the two together. I suggest that if 75 per cent or more of the shares in the family farm corporations were owned by members of the family, it should be treated as if it were an individual farmer. Certainly, if the major part of income were derived from the corporate farm it should be treated in the same way as an individual farmer in regard to taxation.
Problems will arise in regard to the transfer of a farm within a family, whether by sale or inheritance, particularly on the question of realization of capital gains. To the best of my knowledge there is at present no provision for farms transferred within a family, except to the spouse, whether by sale or inheritance, without immediate realization of capital gain. This would be true of the sale or transfer of the farm to a son or of inheritance by the son of the farmer.
We are told that this problem might be avoided by estate planning and if there had been incorporation of the farm. We all know that a farm is a very dangerous place to live, that there are a great number of tractor accidents and that sort of thing. Suppose the farmer and his son were farming together and an accident befell the son to whom the majority of shares had been transferred. If the son died prior to the father, it could mean that the father would have to pay capital gains tax if he were still operating the farm corporation. We know that credit is about as tight as a G-string on most farms at the present time, so there must be in this act provisions to take care of the situation I have outlined. In 95 per cent of the farming operations with which I am familiar, payment of cash would put a great strain upon them.
I would strongly urge, therefore, that transfer of a farm to a son or daughter, whether by sale, gift or inheritance or whatever the circumstances, should carry with it no realization of capital gains so long as it stays within the basic family farm unit. The federal government's decision regarding the application of estate and gift taxes in the farming area does not settle the matter so far as the provinces are concerned. Many provinces will need to increase their revenues and some may be reviewing the question of estate taxes. Merely because the federal government will have dropped estate taxes does not mean that the provinces will drop them with regard to individual enterprises.
I suggest that replacing the estate tax with a capital gains tax will, in a great majority of cases, mean additional taxes. Certainly, in the case of Alberta this will be so. Since 1964, I think, estate taxes have been returned to the individual in Alberta. Therefore, the capital gains tax will be a brand new tax affecting farm enterprises. I suggest that merely looking at the federal scene and federal funding with respect to taxation of these units is not good
Income Tax Act
enough: we must make sure that there is not a double levy of tax on these farming units.
May I now talk about the $1,000 exemption provision on principal residences. Under the new bill, a farmer must be resident on the farm during each year for which he is to qualify for the $1,000 farm exemption. I can foresee problems in this area. A great many farmers in the southern part of my province, Alberta, and a great many in Saskatchewan are occupied principally in farming; that is to say, they do little else. Yet because of road conditions, weather conditions, the division of school boundaries, and so on, they are not able to stay on their farms all the time. That means that they cannot always maintain residence on the farm unit for 12 months of the year, every year.
I suggest that it should be possible for taxpayers who engage in farming to utilize the $1,000 option even though they do not reside on the farm. This would solve other difficulties. For instance, the son might use the farm as his home while both father and son worked on the farm. The $1,000 exemption should apply to the farm itself and should be connected with the residence in which the farmer lives. I think the $1,000 per annum provision should also take into account the sale of the principal residence. I say that because many farmers who retire may want to continue living in their homes on the farm. You often read of cases of a son taking over the farm and of a mother and father deciding to retire and live in the residence they occupied on the farm. I think it is important for us to reconsider this provision.
I think another concept related to farm financing should be reconsidered. It should be possible for a farmer to sell his land and reinvest the proceeds in another farm without incurring capital gains tax. Often the reorganization of a farming enterprise is vital. Farmers might review their operations and decide to consolidate-perhaps to go into a hog enterprise and undertake more building. A farmer may want to sell land and reinvest the money realized in buildings, equipment or some other type of operation. The provisions of the bill should make allowances for this.
A farmer should be able to realize his capital from his land and put it into other land, buildings or equipment without paying capital gains tax in the process. It may be useful to point out that at present extensive averaging is permitted with respect to capital gains in certain enterprises. The farmer should have the opportunity to reinvest his money in farming.
I now wish to talk about valuation day in the area of agriculture. Since the valuation is related to the nature of assets, I submit that the government should introduce a valuation year instead of a valuation day. I do not think that the grouping of assets in various categories merely for valuation day will work very well. Many factors have to be considered here, including the depreciated value and condition of assets, and so on. I think that the concept of valuation day relating to farming enterprises ought to be reviewed also.
I think that about 45 per cent of the income of Canadians goes in taxes which are paid to one of the three levels of government. It has been said-I forget by whom-that the power to tax is the power to destroy. When you see how the rate of taxation has crept up since income tax

October 8, 1971
Income Tax Act
was introduced in the First World War, how the percentage of our income taken in taxes continually increases, and how governments get bigger and bigger and take more and more, you begin to realize that it is only a matter of time before the burden being imposed on the people will be too much for them to carry. Every day you see people throwing up their hands, leaving the work force and going on the welfare rolls. They are maintained through various government income distribution or redistribution schemes.
Fewer and fewer people are carrying the tax load. We must stop this trend if our system is to continue and if we are not to become mere slaves of the state. I do not think the people who are supporting the bill really want this situation for Canada. I do not think that is their concept for Canada. We must take a hard look at the matter because taxes today are taking about 45 per cent of the total income of all Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. He may continue if he has unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, it is not an easy task to discuss this voluminous and very broad bill in general terms, yet this is what is required to be done at second reading. I think, regardless of the way in which the situation is disguised, no bill to reform taxation can fool the public into believing that it would reduce their taxation in the long run.
There are several provisions in the bill which have on the surface some beneficial results for groups of people, yet when you look into them more carefully you find that they are not beneficial at all but in fact work against the people they appear to benefit. I should like to discuss three or four of these provisions in the time available to me. I think I can expose some of the tricky features which can easily deceive people. These provisions should be made very clear and understandable.
The first provision in the bill which has tended to confuse a number of people is that the government said, "We are going to abolish the estate tax." That sounded good. Many people came to me at the beginning and said, "That is good; they are going to abolish the estate tax and we do not have to go through all the shenanigans we have been going through getting lawyers to act in our interest in respect of estate tax and paying large sums of money to the government. It will be great with no estate tax."
Of course, this is not the case at all. In fact, in the Estate Tax Act at the present time provision is made for a basic exemption of $50,000 for every Canadian on which amount the estate is not required to pay tax at all. Certain people-for example, a husband with a wife and several children-are entitled to exemptions greater than that. They can claim up to $90,000 of exemptions under existing tax provisions. So for the average Canadian it is the exemption which counts in terms of the Estate Tax Act, not the tax itself. The average individual with a small estate or with an estate of reasonable size is concerned
only about the exemption. When he is looking at his will, he says, "I have $60,000 or $80,000 of exemption and my widow will have to pay no succession duty at all since we have this small estate."
The situation under the new bill is that there is no estate tax but that a capital gains tax has been substituted for it. And the capital gains tax does not contain any provision for exemptions; you are taxed from the first dollar. This is why I say the provision is tricky. There is no exemption. You cannot look at your estate and say, "It is only a small one, so there will be no tax." The government will take from the first dollar you have. They call it capital gains; they do not call it estate tax.
Calculations have been made which indicate that it will cost more for the average Canadian under the proposed new system of taxation than it would have cost under the previous estate tax legislation, because now he starts out with a few thousand dollars, as most people do, and every time he makes a dollar either by income or by capital gains it is taxed. So he is taxed all the way through his lifetime. Then, if he has anything left at the time of his death he is taxed again. I see no benefit whatever for the taxpayer. The proposed capital gains tax is really a disguised estate tax and it does not benefit the average Canadian in any way.
A similar situation arises in the case of the gift tax. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) announced that the government proposed to abolish gift taxes. People said, "That is great; there will no longer be a gift tax." But the gift tax act, from my limited experience in the practice of law, was used mainly in relation to the exemptions which the law provided. Again, exemptions were allowed to the extent of $2,000. You could give to any number of relatives in a year a considerable sum of money, taking advantage of the exemptions in the gift tax provisions. And this is what people did; they used the benefit of the exemptions in order to make, for example, a substantial gift to a child. A great many people have been taking back a mortgage and writing if off each year as a means of making gifts to a child, or to several children, quite legally and properly, without paying a cent in taxation. It was the exemptions that people watched; it was the exemptions that they used.
At one time the exemption was $1,000, so they gave away $1,000. They kept within the limit of the exemption. The exemption was raised to $2,000, so they gave away $2,000. It was all perfectly legal and proper. Very seldom, in my experience, did anyone give more than the exemption covered, because once they got beyond the basic exemption they had to pay tax, and most people preferred to take their chances with estate tax after they had gone than to pay gift tax at the time of the gift.
The government says it is abolishing the gift tax. What it is really abolishing are the exemptions. So under the new proposals, if you make a gift to a child you are deemed to have realized the asset which you give. It is just the same as if you had sold it or disposed of it in any other way. You are deemed to have realized it and you are taxed on it under the capital gains tax provision. You are taxed from the first dollar. There is now no $2,000 exemption. Although this measure is supposed to be a benefit, it offers none that I can see.

October 8, 1971

We had two provisions here, both of which were used by the public for the exemptions they offered rather than for the tax they charged. These exemptions were abolished. So the good has gone with the bad, though in the two former acts there was a good deal more good than bad. These provisions were of particular benefit to those with small estates and small incomes. The exemptions were applied across the board, and to a person with a $10 million estate a $50,000 exemption meant very little when his estate tax was paid. However, to a person with a $40,000 estate the exemption meant a good deal more; in effect, he paid no estate tax. Once the value of the estate got within the $100,000 bracket, at least one half or perhaps three-quarters of the estate was exempt from tax.
The same situation prevailed in the application of the gift tax. A wealthy person who wanted to give away a lot of money to his dependants or make a bequest for the benefit of the public, never used the gift tax provisions. If he wanted to dispose of his estate he would set up a charitable trust of some sort. Trusts can be set up in many ways to avoid taxation. For example, if you set up a trust, a corporation or a charitable organization, you paid no tax. This is the way the wealthy solved their tax problems. They never used the gift tax provisions. After all, what good was a $2,000 exemption to a millionaire? None at all. The people who used those provisions were citizens of average means.
Many of these people have come to my office and told me that although they do not have very much in the way of an estate they would like to hand something down to their children. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, there are some foolish people in this world who want to pass on everything to their children and in the process stint themselves. In some cases they pass on their wealth to children who do not deserve it, who do not need it or who throw it away when they get it. However, that is beside the point.
Some people spend their lives earning money with only one thing in mind, namely, leaving something to their children. It was these people who used the gift tax exemptions and the exemptions under the Estate Tax Act. But, as I say, both these exemptions have been abolished and these people of modest means have now lost the only hiding place they had from government taxation. On the other hand, people with large estates remain untouched by this legislation.
I do not think I have overstated the position. The point is that the abolition of estate tax and gift tax has been no gift to the average Canadian. If it has helped anybody at all, it is the Canadian government. So I hope I have demolished the idea that has gained some ground, that the abolition of estate and gift taxes was a good thing. I think it was a bad thing.
I should like to deal with another problem that is bothering many people at the moment. I have had dozens of inquiries from people who are wondering how to value real estate which they may one day sell. They have perhaps 100 acres of bushland which might be developed one day, or a piece of waterfront property which, though perhaps isolated at the moment, may soon be served by a road, or perhaps a piece of vacant property that they hope to sell to a builder. These people want to know what will
Income Tax Act
be the position if the government imposes a capital gains tax on real estate and their property is sold one day. The only advice I can give them is to value their property this year, and if it is sold in the future the capital gains tax will be paid on the difference. They then ask me who is going to value the property in 1971, and I tell them that no one is. They reply that somebody must be going to value it, otherwise how can a valuation be fixed?
As far as I know, Mr. Speaker, no one is going to value their property this year. I think it would be an administrative impossibility for the government to undertake such a task. They would be silly to try to value every piece of real estate in Canada and therefore the government are not going to make any valuations. The private individual has no obligation to do so, so what is the holder of a piece of real estate going to pay tax on if he subsequently sells it?
I have been advising these people to get their property valued this year, and I think this is the best advice I can give them. Having obtained a valuation from an accredited valuer and put it away in their little safety deposit boxes, if they have had a reliable valuation and they sell their property in 1975, they have a valuation that was based on current values. It would be most difficult for a real estate valuer or a departmental valuer to look back in 1975 and to say, "Well, you bought your property in 1965, you are selling it in 1975, so what was it worth in 1971? It would be very difficult to make any valuation four years removed from that date, and if a valuation were made of a large piece of real estate this could mean a swing either way of $4,000, $5,000 or even $10,000. So as far as this capital gains tax is concerned, valuation represents a real problem.
Another matter that should be taken into account is that real estate rises and falls in value in accordance with many other factors. There is no way of fixing once and for all the value of a piece of real estate because its value can change if a new development commences nearby. In such an event it could suddenly be worth four or five times its previous value. Changes in the stock market can also influence its value. If the stocks and bonds market becomes bad, investors tend to turn to real estate, and vice versa. Its value also depends on the need for housing in the community or on the development of the community. There are so many different factors that can influence the value of a piece of real estate. Therefore it will be very difficult to value property. As I say, the only protection for a member of the public is to have his property valued by a real estate valuer.
I think the amusing part of this situation is that some of my clients have already had their real estate valued by real estate valuers who are accustomed to valuating for succession duty purposes. Their valuations are low because this has been the way they have done it for years, and there is always a haggle between a private valuation and a valuation by the government tax department. Valuations are not exactly accurate because people in different areas place different values on real estate.
This is a real catch in the legislation and I have no idea how the government intends to deal with it. I suspect that in every case there will be a fight between the Department of National Revenue and the individual. This will mean

October 8, 1971
Income Tax Act
that individuals will have their real estate valued at their own expense and that government officials will, at public expense, do the valuations. This will put a lot of small property holders, average citizens, to great expense. They will have to pit their abilities against the ability of the government. This may not sound too bad, but it is difficult to go into a small community and get a lawyer, a real estate valuer and a tax adviser in order to contest the findings of well trained people in government circles. In the long run, government assessments are accepted. In this situation the public will be reamed once again.


An hon. Member:: Is that a parliamentary word?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I will accept a question, if it is one. If it is not, I will continue my comments.


An hon. Member:: It is one of the Prime Minister's favourite words.


Gerald William Baldwin: It has been accepted since 1968, because that is what has been happening to the public.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: There is one thing I cannot understand and, perhaps because I am stupid, I have been trying to figure it out for 15 years. I have in mind the method of calculating tax for a professional person. I have been practising law and have always followed what is generally called the cash receipts basis. I do some work for an individual and he pays me. Perhaps I charge him $50 and I have paid out $15, so his bill is $65. I pay tax on the $50, which is what I received. At the end of the year I add up the dollars I have received as fees and that total is what I use as the basis for tax. That is my profit. I think that is a reasonable arrangement for all taxpayers because it is what they receive. I think it is reasonable for the tax collector, because he collects taxes on what has been received.
I have never been able to understand the accountant's dream, which is what I call the system the government is trying to put into effect under this bill. Under this system individuals can swindle the government every time. As soon as you send out a bill you charge for that amount because that is the money you are supposed to receive. You may never receive it, or you may receive only half, but you do not know that when you send out the bill. You may charge someone you will never see again, or someone from whom you will never collect. In any event, you send out the bill and pay tax on it.
At the end of the year you are allowed to write off what you expect you will never receive. What you have is a double negative. You bill for what you might receive and then you write off what you think you might not receive. You pay taxes on what you have left. Perhaps this is very simple-but it does not matter how much you write off or how much you actually lose, you go according to the book. You are allowed to write off perhaps three times as much as you are going to lose or that you think you might lose.


An hon. Member:: You better get better accounting advice.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: My hon. friend knows as well as I that I am telling the truth. The government is substituting a system which is vulnerable to abuse at both ends. In any event, this is what I call an accountant's dream, because anyone can swindle the government. I do not care what my hon.

friend thinks about it, I know that is what would happen. This is not a valid system. It may be great for large enterprises, but for a person who does not want to spend all his life keeping books for the government, which is what my hon. friend would want us to do, it is a terrible system.


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


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Certainly.


Duncan Gordon Blair: Would the hon. member explain why businessmen in this country are required to keep their books in accordance with the accrual system and why he thinks, as a professional man, that he is entitled to a special privilege?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I did not say I was entitled to any special privilege; I suggest that because you have one stupid system is no reason for having another one.


An hon. Member:: That's pretty weak, Gordon.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: No, it is not. In any event, I see it is four o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills and private bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' NOTICES OF MOTIONS


Mr.   Fernand-E. Leblanc@Laurier: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately consider the advisability of requiring Canadian citizens and immigrants to carry an identification card.
Mr. Speaker, before dealing with this notice of motion, which I put on the Order Paper on October 27, 1970, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger) on his new appointment. I am convinced it is due to his competence, his ability and his devotion to public affairs.
As I said, that notice of motion was placed on the order paper on October 27, 1970. It was called once before on September 24. On that occasion, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), who was piloting Bill C-243, an Act to amend the Judges Act and the Financial Administration Act, asked me whether I would agree to postpone debate on my notice of motion, a request I was pleased to comply with, after having obtained unanimous consent of the House. In fact, the House adopted the bill that day.
Obviously, my notice of motion, filed in October 1970 following the tragic happenings in Quebec, was perhaps at that time a reaction to current events.
October 8, 1971

Besides, at the present time, we have similar reactions in other areas. For instance, the government reacted when the 10 per cent surcharge was imposed by the President of the United States, and we reacted by introducing a bill to support employment in Canada.
Of course, I also reacted at that time, after having asked my constituents for their views. I had received their approval and almost all were unanimous in thinking that perhaps circumstances were such as to favour the revival of the debate on identity cards.
The motion itself says, and I quote:
-the government should immediately consider-
I am not requesting that we require immediately that people carry an indentification card, because I believe it is more important to consider the arguments for and against this before taking a decisive step on the matter.
I also said that we must, and I continue the quotation:
-requiring Canadian citizens and immigrants to carry an identification card.
And maybe we should add that every resident citizen in Canada should be required to carry such a card.
So I believed it was important to clarify the text because the matter has been much questioned, it has prompted a controversy among newspapermen and, obviously, it will be discussed until a more definite position is taken.
I must point out that personally, I am in favour of a compulsory identification card for all Canadian residents unless, of course, I am given evidence that I am wrong in my present approach to the problem.
I would like also to thank the Library's management who has forwarded to me a considerable amount of literature on this subject and part of my comments this afternoon are actually based on this information.
Indeed, my remarks this afternoon will not necessarily detail all the pros and cons in respect of identity cards, but I am sure that most of these arguments will prove to be well-grounded. Hon. members will thus have an opportunity of considering my comments and letting me know whether they feel that the government should give priority to this issue.
Should anyone care to know some of the historical background of this question, one must go back far enough into the history of the province of Quebec. In this respect, I have received from the Library an excerpt of pages 157 and 158 of an article entitled: "Electoral legislation in Quebec".
At first, the main argument in favour of an identity card was that it would help prevent electoral frauds. Since then things have greatly changed and today an identity card would be more related to other needs than to prevent electoral fraud.
But it is interesting to note that the Union National party had approved in 1936 a legislation to the effect that each voter should produce his identity card before entering an election office. For one reason or another, this law was repealed before the 1939 elections and voters were not required then to show their identity cards before casting their vote in the ballot box.
Under Camilien Houde an attempt was made to introduce such a card and again the only argument put forward was that an ID card could prevent election fraud.
Canadian Citizen Identification Cards
The municipal election in 1962 carried a referendum on a mandatory I.D. card, and 75 per cent of the Montreal voters registered their approval.
Later, Mayor Jean Drapeau and Mr. Lucien Saulnier, President of the Executive Committee went before the Quebec Legislature and asked that a clause calling for a mandatory I.D. card be included in the constitution of the City of Montreal.
At the time Daniel Johnson was premier of the province of Quebec and after lengthy talks it seemed that the idea was dismissed though the population had strongly favoured it.
In that connection I would like to quote from an anonymous article published in Le Devoir of April 10, 1967 and entitled "The I.D. Card and the Fears of a Police State". It reads:
Five years ago, in a referendum before the 1962 municipal election, the Montreal population overwhelmingly endorsed the introduction of a mandatory identification card. Apparently this referendum was useless because the discussions held in Quebec City when the amendments to the charter of the City of Montreal came under study indicated that the identification card was not forthcoming.
In 1963, another minister of the province of Quebec, Mr. Lafrance, took over the idea. He launched an important campaign advocating the need for an identification card. The card would no longer be mandatory.
On December 11, 1963, Pierre O'Neill said in La Presse:
The Family and Social Welfare Department is about to launch a major campaign to have the principle of the identification card accepted by the citizens of the province of Quebec.
The card Mr. Lafrance is thinking about would not be mandatory, but it is almost certain it will be some day. Besides, the minister makes no mystery about his final objective.
We are already aware of how strong will be the opposition the minister will have to face. Large segments of our population and especially the intellectuals strongly oppose this measure.
A fierce battle may be expected.
Apparently, the battle did not last long because this proposal made by Quebec minister Lafrance came to a dead-end. But in 1967, the judges in the province of Quebec held a conference and spoke in favour of an identity card for all Canadian citizens. I would like to quote from a few articles published at the time of this conference. An unsigned article published in Le Soleil on September 20, 1967, stated partly under the headline "La carte d'identite":
Identity cards are an easy way to track down criminals. Quite astonishingly, groups which are the most vehemently opposing frauds of all kinds and which are demanding the use of drastic procedures for proving identity are against identity cards. They always put forward the fallacious argument of individuals rights whereas identity cards would apply equally to all citizens and are becoming more and more necessary to ensure the protection of both the citizens and the community.
And Roger Champoux, in an article published in La Presse on 19 September, stated partly, and I quote:
Identity cards were mentioned at the time of Mayor Camillien Houde and the system was initiated. Cards were printed, photos taken by the thousands and then, without any explanation, the whole business was dropped. From time to time, emphasis is being given to compulsory identity cards, as is happening now;

October 8, 1971
Canadian Citizen Identification Cards
This is, of course, also true in 1972. The article continued:
... the papers indulge in a bit of classical editorial-the present case; everybody agrees that it is no more shameful to show one's identity card than one's passport at a customs office .. .
Another La Presse report had this to say on the resolution of the conference of judges, and I quote:
Among the other proposals accepted by the assembly, one deals with a request which will be presented at the same time to the federal government and the provincial government in order that the identity card be made compulsory. According to the assembly, that card should be related both to the judiciary and the police.
It is alleged that many will shout police state, but such a card would be very important to some industries and businesses like banks and others.
The ultimate purpose of that step would be to enable the police to fight the underworld.
The arguments in favour of compulsory identification cards have evolved over the years, from 1936 up to that meeting of judges where they started considering the matter of compulsory identification cards not only to prevent fraudulent elections but also for other purposes, namely, judicial and police purposes.
Shortly afterwards, the Chamber of Notaries announced it was in favour of an identification card, and here it might be timely to consider the arguments used by the notaries on that occasion. They can be found in the December 9, 1967 issue of the newspaper La Presse, in an article signed by Mr. Leopold Lizotte and entitled:
Notaries request identification cards and family booklets Gathered together for their annual banquet, last night, in Chateau Champlain, the Montreal district notaries have asked the Minister of Justice of the province to establish in Quebec official and compulsory identification cards and family booklets in order to help the administration of justice and prevent countless frauds.
Addressing himself directly to Mr. Jean-Jacques Bertrand, the guest of honour at the meeting, the president of the Montreal District Notaries' Association, Mr. Andre Labonte, submitted that despite all precautions, and the legendary prudence of notaries, it was at the time impossible for notaries to absolutely ascertain the identity of the people appearing before them.
Since then, and especially in 1970-1971, several intermediary bodies, including the trucking industry council, have declared themselves in favour of such an identification card.
Evidently, the question gained momentum on the occasion of the October 1970 events, which proves what I was saying at the outset. At that time I was given generous publicity by the reporters; I received numerous letters and telegrams from people from all walks of life. Moreover, the Quebec judges conference sent me a letter dated November 2, 1970 signed by the chairman, Mr. Justice Marcel Marier of the Municipal Court of the city of Montreal, 775 Gosford Street, Montreal. Here it is:
Dear Mr. Leblanc:
We were informed that a notice of motion has been introduced in the House of Commons requiring all Canadian citizens to carry an identification card.
You will find enclosed a copy of a resolution that was unanimously approved by the Quebec judges in 1967. You may be sure of the support from all our group.
Yours truly,
And here is the resolution:
WHEREAS the lack of adequate identification means gives rise to

several obstacles in social, judiciary and commercial administration and especially as regards justice;
I will spare the House the whereases because time is running out. I will quote only the resolution.
BE IT RESOLVED THAT, following a proposal from Mr. Justice Jacques Trahan of the Court of the Sessions of the Peace, seconded by Mr. Justice Henri Masson Loranger of the Court of the Sessions of the Peace, the Quebec judges conference on the occasion of their present meeting, ask the Quebec Parliament to pass a legislation obliging the citizens to carry an identification card and be it also resolved that a copy of this resolution be sent to the federal Minister of Justice.
And right after I had filed that notice of motion, the Quebec Minister of Justice, Mr. Jerome Choquette, found it necessary to make a statement in favour of an identity card in the province. On that occasion, discussions were held on the possibility that a province was not authorized under the constitution to make the carrying of an identity card compulsory. The federal Minister of Justice has raised doubts about the competence of the provinces to do so. I hope that this will not become an issue between Quebec and Ottawa, since Quebec has stated that it was in favour of the card after my notice of motion had been filed.
Evidently, arguments can be raised for or against. I would say that the arguments in favour deal with the concept of freedom. There would then be some constraint and it would be a source of troubles for the citizen who would be called upon quite often to show his card. We would have the establishment of a police or half-police state, which might perhaps lead to a dictatorship, and open the door to abuses of power. Freedom might be suspended.


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


Mr. Leblanc (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I have given the negative arguments only. I should like, however, to state arguments in favour of an identity card, if hon. members will allow me to do so.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Five minutes!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Agreed.


Fernand-E. Leblanc: I thank the hon. members, Mr. Speaker.
As for the arguments in favour, I shall attempt to state them as quickly as possible, so as not to take too much time and allow other hon. members, who wish to do so, to speak on this matter. But it must be noted that what I am asking is that the government give priority to the consideration of an identification card.
In support of this measure, one could mention the protection it would give to the honest citizen and, as a corollary, the fact that it could be a working tool for the police forces. Such a card could ensure the protection of the
October 8, 1971

community in case of riots or terrorist acts. It could help to fight not only electoral fraud but many other types of fraud now occurring in Canada, such as banking fraud, social assistance fraud, fraud with regard to all sorts of subsidies, to old age pensions, and so on. It would be of benefit to those who travel, both within the country and abroad. And such a card could replace a number of others already in existence, such as the social insurance card, the health insurance card, and so on.
I would also like to point out that in Canada we have the citizenship card and that, perhaps, the minister could give it more publicity while waiting for the government to consider the advisability of requiring citizens to carry an identification card.
As for me, I have become, in my riding, a keen advocate of this citizenship card. As a matter of fact, I carry one myself and I can identify myself better under certain circumstances. It could also help to verify the age of our young people for instance in places where alcoholic beverages are sold and in movie-houses. Today, some films are restricted to persons 18 and over and others to those who are 14 or over. Special rates are granted on planes, trains and buses. An identification card would be very useful in this regard.
I would have many more comments to make but let me say this: if we must have identification cards in Canada, they should be issued by the federal authorities rather than by the provinces because I can hardly see hon. members from our ten provinces sitting here together and having different identification cards, while we are forming one country, this great Canada, for which a great future is foreseen.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Yes, with the permission of the hon. member who has spoken.


Fernand-E. Leblanc: Very well.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Does the social insurance card not serve part of the objective about which the hon. member is speaking?


Fernand-E. Leblanc: I want to thank the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson) for his question.
Obviously, this would partly be an identification card. It would perhaps not show all the identifying features of an actual identity card such as the holder's name, address, age, picture and finger-prints. If a police card is wanted, it would be important to show the finger-prints but this is a merely technical point.
What would be the minimum age for carrying such a card? Should it be issued to new-born babies or to youngsters twelve-years of age or over? This is why my notice of motion-and I am very grateful to the hon. member for his question-is so important because there are technical details involved.


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, no doubt hon. members will allow me to offer you my heartiest congratulations on 24319-54}
Canadian Citizen Identification Cards
your accession to this most responsible function, and, relying on the small experience I have of it, I know, Mr. Speaker, that it will give you great satisfaction.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words this afternoon about the motion proposed by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Leblanc), because it seems to me that at present this matter is of special interest and of particular importance for our society.
The identification card issue is one about which everybody seems to have his own opinion, which is probably quite natural if one considers how much the use of those cards affects the whole community. It is also an issue which suggests frightening visions to many people. The police state, the "Big Brother" attitude, the interference in private life and the loss of individuality are among the familiar concepts which are invoked with regard to this proposal and which are very often brought forward as a reason to reject it. Therefore, if this idea is so frightening, it is essential that we discuss it carefully before taking a decision.
When I consider this problem, I try first to answer the following questions: What is an identification card? Does that paper have a special size, colour or shape? Does it show a special type of information? Is it something which one has to carry all the time? Does it serve only one purpose? My reply to all these questions is: not necessarily. Any paper which gives an indication of my identity is, in a sense, an identification card. And we use nowadays a great many papers of this kind. On the Canadian scene, public as well as private organizations issue a whole lot of papers which an individual needs in order to confirm a given status, to record an event, to be allowed a given activity, to establish a right, or to obtain goods or services more easily. I am talking about certificates, licences, passes, and membership or credit cards. Almost all those documents carry a certain value as evidence of identity, and they are generally accepted as such. In my opinion, one can hardly doubt their basic utility for the average citizen. I also believe that they will undoubtedly become increasingly important for the individual, the government, commercial organizations and business concerns, as the mobility of the population increases. More and more complex business relations and more frequent contacts between government and citizens will initiate the need for individual records. It is not merely or even mainly a matter of administrative efficiency; the idea is not to punish, but rather to assist the individual; it is more a matter of serving people than of saving money. We therefore see that the identification card is not necessarily such an ugly document as some people think.
However, this system of personal documentation as it is known to us today was not planned in advance. It is an answer to a need and the numerous and various interested agencies are not consulted about the public or private interest it could offer.
Most documents issued are delivered to the claimant on the strength of his own statements or, in some cases where this is not satisfying, on presentation of other documents obtained beforehand. When a driver's license is to be issued, the driver's ability is the main concern; for a credit card, the solvability is checked; the diploma is a

October 8, 1971
Canadian Citizen Identification Cards
proof of qualifications. The identification of the applicant is secondary to the prime object of the request, and the value of the card, for identification purposes, is usually rather negligible. The statements of the applicant are checked only where circumstances warrant it and the identity of the individual is rarely checked. It is therefore possible to commit acts of fraud or make false statements, and numerous documents can be produced in support of a false identity. Of course, most documents issued are based on accurate information, but the fact that some documents are not hurts the reputation of the system, in that the credibility of authentic documents is sometimes questioned.
Administrative needs require of an individual that he supply descriptive information repeatedly in the preparation of those documents. The information thus collected for various purposes have some common points and most details could be used in each case. That process which is repeated at all levels of government and in various organizations and corporations periodically gives rise to vexations and disadvantages for the citizen and creates administrative problems, since it increases efforts and lost time.
As a rule at least, the creation of a single organization, evidently coming under federal jurisdiction and having the responsibility for issuing identity cards to all, could cope with those difficulties. It would thus be possible to issue to a citizen reaching a specific age or to an immigrant at the time of his admittance in the country an identity card whose validity is guaranteed. Furthermore, I think that the situation would be improved generally if, on the one hand, a government body were responsible for the issuance of identity cards to persons applying for them, and if, on the other hand, the value of information so collected were acknowledged when other documents would have to be issued.
I have good reason to believe that many people would make the point that by compelling someone to do something, one restricts his freedom; generally, such restraints, particularly when used by the government, are unwelcome in a democracy such as ours. Only a few days ago, I was talking to someone who expressed his concern on this matter; in his view, an identity card was an infringement of personal freedom. "One of these days, out of a clear sky," said he, "the police will ask us our address". Of course, the police can obtain very quickly the address of car drivers. Ontario residents are even required to give within six days their address to the authorities.
Of course, we accept this obligation as essential in the general interest and this is part of the price we pay to use highways. However, we want the least possible of such restraints. This raises the following question: Should the identification card, if it is issued by government authorities, be compulsory. Is it necessary to give each and every citizen an identification card, whether he wants it or not? Is it even desirable? Until now I have said that an identification card is useful and that, in general, people have found it valuable in their relations with others outside their immediate surroundings. It is obvious that it represents an economical way of making dealings easier-and not only business transactions-even if it is not essential. Therefore, in my opinion, the individual must decide by himself. If he wants a card, he gets one, and his relations

with the outside world are facilitated to the extent he uses it. On the other hand, if he prefers discretion or individualism to convenience, or if he is reluctant to the idea for any other reason, he will not be forced to have a card. Generally, people think that a system of registration or identification is only effective if it covers every citizen of a country, but I do not agree. Certainly, the more comprehensive it is, the more extended are its benefits; but the benefits that the community and the individuals will derive from it will not in any way be diminished due to the fact that a segment of the population, whether large or small, will not accept it.
While I do not want to compel anybody to participate in such a system, I hesitate to deprive someone from the opportunity of doing so because it would be imprudent or equivalent to waiving personal freedom. Those who are overseeing to the interests of their fellow citizens are sometimes overzealous when it comes to protecting people against their own foolishness or against what they believe, in their superior wisdom, to be foolishness. I do not see anything of the kind here.
My third point, Mr. Speaker, is this: the rights and freedoms of the individuals are adequately safeguarded if participation to a national system of identification is optional. I would add for the skeptical ones, that this system is used at the present time in France, and with success.
From what I have just said, it is obvious that I should also be against the obligation for citizens to carry an identity card on their person or produce it for scrutiny by the authorities. Certainly, should someone have the misfortune to be suspected of an offence of which he is innocent, an identity card might be the means of proving his good faith. Or again, if it were a matter of establishing a right, the holder of a card could resort to it in order to have his right recognized and granted more readily by the proper agency. In fact, those are some of the important purposes the document would clearly serve. But the decision as to whether the card should be carried around in order to enjoy the above-mentioned advantages should be left to the entire discretion of the individual. A driver or a pilot has to carry a permit attesting his ability to handle the vehicle for which he is responsible, a measure essential for the protection of the public. However, I see no parallel between a citizen going about his own business and the holder of an identity card, and certainly no reason to force him to produce such card like a schoolboy answering roll-call.
Since the system of national identification cards is often associated with storage into a computer of particulars about an individual, I deem it advisable to insist upon the very obvious fact that these are two quite different matters. It seems to me that the abuses which are sometimes associated with the use of computers in this field cannot arise as far as the identification cards are concerned if we consider the kind of information that will be found on them. It is obvious that such information is not of a private nature and I cannot imagine any conceivable situation in which information about professional ability or other subjective appreciations of all sorts would appear on such a document.
October 8, 1971

Therefore I cannot foresee any problem as far as that card is concerned, even if it were related in some way to a computer for the storage of the data.
I think however that we will face some problems; indeed the usefulness and the efficiency of every national system of identification cards rests to a great extent on its security aspect and, naturally, on its acceptance by the public. I suppose that security would apply to information provided on the card and to the formalities required for obtaining it. It would be absolutely necessary first to check the applicant's identity. There should be no opportunity for serious errors in the descriptive information, and the card itself should be designed in such a way that it would be practically impossible to forge it or alter it. Therefore, the first step in this process calls for the cooperation of the people and might create major problems, because in many cases, checking the identity of the applicant will bring on him many problems. If statements under oath supporting evidence for an application, the testimony of relatives or sponsors, or other forms of confirmation are required, the public might possibly react unfavourably. The value of the system will however depend greatly on the effectiveness of the measures taken at this stage. The descriptive information required on the card is rather obvious: the name and place of birth, the sex, the height, the blood group, the colour of the eyes, physical features least likely to be changed, as well as a photograph and the signature of the holder. Were it required to list distinctive marks like scars, birthmarks, or else fingerprints, the public would no doubt be against it, for, in the first case, it would be an invasion of privacy, and in the second, it would mean an unpleasant and useless requirement. The increased security of the system brought about by those additional identification methods is not essential to its proper operation, and it seems wise to forgo the meagre benefits they provide. I also believe it is possible, with our technical means and devices, to manufacture cheaply an identification card which would be difficult to use for fraudulent purposes; if this process does not provide an absolute guarantee against duplication or alteration, it is second only to the most sophisticated and expensive forgery techniques and allows the immediate tracking of rough alterations. By the same token, if it were possible to make a color identification card to which there would be a symbolic value, it would be quickly accepted by the public.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I find certain advantages in the use of an identification card issued by a governmental agency. I do not think it should be mandatory and I would object to a measure making it mandatory for Canadian citizens to carry one or to produce it on request. I recognize that such a system raises problems and can lead to abuses, but I think problems can be solved and abuses eliminated.


Mr. E. B. Osier (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I will not take long because I know other hon. members wish to speak in this debate. I should like to say a few words and give my reasons for seconding this notice of motion.
I am grateful to the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Leblanc) for bringing forward this matter. I noted with
Canadian Citizen Identification Cards
interest his words and those of my colleague, the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles de la Madeleine (Mr. Bechard).
I am glad to second this motion. I think it is a motion that should be brought forward, discussed, examined from every angle with very long tongs, and then dropped into a furnace and burned. One word in the motion bothers me. I do not like the word "requiring". I wish that word had not been included. One could say identification cards are very useful. Yet if you were to say to a Canadian citizen, without embellishment, "You are required to carry an identification card," I think he would say, "I'll be damned if I will."
Under normal conditions an I.D. card is not acceptable. There may be some conditions, such as in wartime, when conditions are confused or when there is an emergency, when identification cards might be useful. They were useful during the last war when we wanted to register people for selective service and take an inventory of the qualifications of people who lived in this land. However, under normal circumstances I cannot understand why the servants of a free people, the government, should ask that citizens carry identity cards.
I have a charming little poodle at home. It is the third dog I have had. The other two lived for 13 years, and this one is in its third year. She is just as intelligent as I am, and twice as attractive. The law requires a dog to wear a tag; she must wear it all the time. The only difference between us is that our ancestors climbed out of the slime, yet my ancestor in his wisdom took the road that led to my making, whereas the dog's ancestor took another road. I do not think any human being should ever allow himself to be tagged, even though society demands that dogs be tagged. Never must we allow that.
Since other members wish to speak, I merely say that this issue should be discussed. It ought to be examined in good will by people on both sides of the fence. Surely there are more acceptable ways of combating problems than the issuance of identification cards. What would give anybody the idea that such cards are good anyway? If the carrying of an I.D. card were made mandatory, I would cheerfully go to jail rather than accept such a law, because in a society which would allow this I would probably be safer, more comfortable and among more congenial people if I were in jail than in society generally.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I want to add a few words to the debate and also leave a few minutes for my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who also wishes to speak. I oppose this notice of motion as drafted for three reasons. First, I oppose it because "immigrants" is included in the wording of the motion. I think that provision is most offensive to immigrants, prospective citizens and, perhaps, to visitors coming to this country. If people are here as visitors or as landed immigrants, they have in their possession passports from their own country. They retain such passports until they become Canadian citizens, at which time they give up their foreign passports and receive Canadian citizenship cards. For that reason I do not see why immigrants should be included in the wording of the motion.
My second reason is what I would class the traditional reason. We should approach the question of identity cards
____________________________COMMONS DEBATES
Canadian Citizen Identification Cards
October 8, 1971
with great care. The question was raised after the events of one year ago in Quebec. I believe the Minister of Justice of that province made the proposal. It was made, I think, in the heat of great stress and provocation. The idea was put forward as a measure to protect the state. According to what I have read subsequently, the idea has not been pressed further. I am under the impression that the Quebec Minister of Justice does not favour too strongly his original proposal and that he sees certain dangers which are involved.
We know that identification cards will not prevent evil people from carrying out their evil ends. Whether they have identity cards or not will make no difference to them. Such cards will do little to protect the state. In the first place, the authorities must catch the evil-doers before asking for their identity cards. This is like the old story of sprinkling salt on a bird's tail: first you must catch the bird and then sprinkle salt on its tail. Similarly, you have to catch a man before you ask for his identity card. I do not understand how identification cards, under present conditions, would be of any help. At present almost everybody has some form of identification. Banks accept almost any form of identification-a driver's licence, social security card, credit card, and so on. This proves only that you are alive, which is obvious because you are there. This is about all such identification proves. For the traditional reasons that are often advanced, I oppose the idea of giving people an identification card to be used in their daily affairs.
As I see it, any legislation making mandatory an identity card always contains a second clause that says the police are entitled to ask for your identity card whenever they feel like it. There is real danger in this practice. I have never seen any legislation of this kind which does not include some sort of licence, or right, giving the police the right to look at the identification on demand. That is true of the breath-test law and of many other laws. When you are driving a car the police are entitled to ask for your driver's licence without saying why they want it. Generally, they keep you in suspense. As I see it, the great danger in introducing an identification card system is that the police could demand to see it.
I oppose the motion because it suggests that the government ought to look into this question. I think this would be interpreted as carte blanche from this House to seriously consider it-and without intending to appear mean in any way, the last thing I would want to give this government is the right to impose further restrictions on the liberties of the Canadian people. I think the general history of the last two or three years shows the government has adopted a generally autocratic attitude toward Canadian citizens and the Canadian House of Commons. I would not want to give them one more twist of the wrist. I would oppose the motion for that reason alone.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier) has already indicated, it is perhaps a good idea that this question be aired, at least during this hour. But like the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken), I would not like to see the motion passed if it meant that the idea would be considered at all seriously.
(Mr. Aiken.]
During this hour I believe it has been clearly indicated that the overwhelming feeling in the House of Commons is that there should not be any legislation requiring all persons in Canada to carry identification cards. Like others who have spoken, I believe it is a good idea for individuals voluntarily to carry various proofs of identification. This is useful in case of accident, in case one is lost or in difficulty of any kind. But surely the emphasis on carrying this kind of identification should be voluntary. Likewise, I have no quarrel with the idea that in cases where the state has the authority to licence individuals to do certain things, such as drive a car, or fish, and so on, the holders of such licences should be required to carry proof that they have been so licenced.
I believe it is also proper for banking institutions and other credit institutions to issue cards to individuals verifying that they have been authorized to engage in such functions. But when it comes to an identity card which, in effect, you would be required to carry to prove your right to be here, your right to live, I suggest we are going too far.
I hope I am not being unfair to the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Leblanc). I listened to what he said, and I listened carefully to the answer he gave to the question asked by my hon. friend from Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson). It seems that one of the main reasons he has in mind in proposing identification cards is to cope with criminals. One of the things he suggested about the kind of card he had in mind was that fingerprints should be on it. In effect, the motion is suggesting to every Canadian that he must carry a card to prove he is not a criminal. I believe this is completely contrary to our concept of a free society, and that it is not a good idea at all.
None of us in this House offers any criticism of the hon. member for presenting the motion so that the matter can be discussed, but I would think this airing has made it clear that most of us feel that though the carrying of voluntary identification cards is quite in order, any compulsory carrying of identity cards imposed upon all Canadians is not something which commends itself in our kind of free society.


Mr. Sharp:: Mr. Speaker, I would ask consent of the House to revert to motions.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there disposition on the part of the House to allow the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) to seek leave to revert to motions.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for giving me the opportunity to table two sets of documents; first, the
October 8, 1971

modalities according to which the government of Quebec is admitted as a participating government to the institutions, activities and programs of the Agence de Cooperation Culturelle et Technique. This is the text of an agreement reached between the governments of Quebec and Canada.
The other is a document requested today by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) who asked to have tabled in the House a copy of the Albanian resolution on the China question now before the United Nations.


An hon. Member:: Five o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Do hon. members wish the Chair to call it five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
United Nations


Mr. Speaker:: The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has expired. It being 5 o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday at 2 o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, should that not be until two o'clock on Tuesday?


Mr. Speaker:: I thought perhaps the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) would like to come back on Monday at two o'clock. For the rest of us it will be Tuesday afternoon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, I shall be here on Monday.
At 5.01 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

October 8, 1971



APPENDIX

[Stage Direction]
Federal Government's Response to Book IV of the Report
of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and
Biculturalism
The purpose of this document is to present a survey of the principal policies relating to the maintenance and development of multiculturalism throughout Canada and to provide a summary of government decisions on the recommendations made in Book IV of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism.
The document outlines in Part A the federal government's response in general to the recommendations of Book IV of the royal commission report and gives some of the reasons for its belief in multiculturalism.
In Part B are outlined the policy objectives which will serve to guide the federal government's programs in this area.
Part C contains a general description of the programs to be undertaken by the federal government and its agencies to implement and advance the policies resulting from acceptance of the recommendations of Book IV of the royal commission's report.
A summary of the recommendations of Book IV of the royal commission's report and the government's response to them is in Part D.
[Stage Direction]
Federal Response in General
Book IV of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism contains 16 recommendations (listed in Section D) of which eight are addressed specifically to the federal government or its agencies. Three deal with matters under exclusive provincial jurisdiction. One of the recommendations urges federal financial aid to linguistically handicapped children in public schools. Another is concerned with conditions for citizenship, the right to vote, and the right to stand for election to public office and thus is addressed to both the federal and the provincial governments. One appeals to agencies at all three levels of government to provide support to cultural and research organizations. The remaining recommendations are addressed to Canadian Universities.
The government accepts and endorses the recommendations and spirit of Book IV of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. It believes the time is overdue for the people of Canada to become more aware of the rich tradition of the many cultures we have in Canada. Canada's citizens come from almost every country in the world, and bring with them every major world religion and language. This cultural diversity endows all Canadians with a great variety of human experience. The government regards this as a heritage to treasure and believes that Canada would be the poorer if we adopted assimilation programs forcing our citizens to forsake and forget the cultures they have brought to us.
The federal government hopes that the provinces will also respond positively to those recommendations which the commissioners addressed to them. The Prime Minister has written to each of the provincial premiers outlining the policies and programs which the Federal Government is initiating and asking for their co-operation. Some provinces have already taken the initiative and are responding to the recommendations directed to them.
The government while responding positively to the commission's recommendations, wishes to go beyond them to the spirit of the Book IV to ensure that Canada's cultural diversity continues.
Cultural diversity throughout the world is being eroded by the impact of industrial technology, mass communications and urbanization. Many writers have discussed this as the creation of a mass society-in which mass produced culture and entertainment and large impersonal institutions threaten to denature and depersonalize man. One of man's basic needs is a sense of belonging, and a good deal of contemporary social unrest-in all age groups-exists because this need has not been met. Ethnic groups are certainly not the only way in which this need for belonging can be met, but they have been an important one in Canadian society. Ethnic pluralism can help us overcome or prevent the homogenization and depersonalization of mass society. Vibrant ethnic groups can give Canadians of the second, third, and subsequent generations a feeling that they are connected with tradition and with human experience in various parts of the world and different periods of time.
Two misconceptions often arise when cultural diversity is discussed.
(a)	Cultural Identity and National Allegiance.
The sense of identity developed by each citizen as a unique individual is distinct from his national allegiance. There is no reason to suppose that a citizen who identifies himself with pride as a Chinese-Canadian,, who is deeply involved in the cultural activities of the Chinese community in Canada, will be less loyal or concerned with Canadian matters than a citizen of Scottish origin who takes part in a bagpipe band or a highland dancing group. Cultural identity is not the same thing as allegiance to a country. Each of us is born into a particular family with a distinct heritage: that is, everyone- French, English, Italian and Slav included-has an "ethnic" background. The more secure we feel in one particular social context, the more we are free to explore our identity beyond it. Ethnic groups often provide people with a sense of belonging which can make them better able to cope with the rest of society than they would as isolated individuals. Ethnic loyalties need not, and usually do not, detract from wider loyalties to community and country.
Canadian identity will not be undermined by multiculturalism. Indeed, we believe that cultural pluralism is the very essence of Canadian identity. Every ethnic group
October 8, 1971
[Stage Direction]
has the right to preserve and develop its own culture and values within the Canadian context. To say we have two official languages is not to say we have two official cultures, and no particular culture is more "official" than another. A policy of multiculturalism must be a policy for all Canadians.
(b)	Language and Culture.
The distinction between language and culture has never been clearly defined. The very name of the royal commission whose recommendations we now seek to implement tends to indicate that bilingualism and bicul-turalism are indivisible. But, biculturalism does not properly describe our society; multiculturalism is more accurate. The Official Languages Act designated two languages, English and French, as the official languages of Canada for the purposes of all the institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada; no reference was made to cultures, and this act does not impinge upon the role of all languages as instruments of the various Canadian cultures. Nor, on the other hand, should the recognition of the cultural value of many languages weaken the position of Canada's two official languages. Their use by all of the citizens of Canada will continue to be promoted and encouraged.
[Stage Direction]
Policy Objectives in the Federal Sphere
The government is concerned with preserving human rights, developing Canadian identity, strengthening citizenship participation, reinforcing Canadian unity and encouraging cultural diversification within a bilingual framework. These objectives can best be served through a policy of multiculturalism composed of four main elements.
1.	The government of Canada will support all of Canada's cultures and will seek to assist, resources permitting, the development of those cultural groups which have demonstrated a desire and effort to continue to develop, a capacity to grow and contribute to Canada, as well as a clear need for assistance.
The special role of the government will be to support and encourage those cultures and cultural groups which Canadians wish to preserve.
The stronger and more populous cultural groups generally have the resources to be self-supporting and general cultural activities tend to be supportive of them. The two largest cultures, in areas where they exist in a minority situation, are already supported under the aegis of the government's official languages programs. New programs are proposed to give support to minority cultural groups in keeping with their needs and particular situations.
However, the government cannot and should not take upon itself the responsibility for the continued viability of all ethnic groups. The objective of our policy is the cultural survival and development of ethnic groups to the degree that a given group exhibits a desire for this. Government aid to cultural groups must proceed on the
basis of aid to self-effort. And in our concern for the preservation of ethnic group identity, we should not forget that individuals in a democracy may choose not to be concerned about maintaining a strong sense of their ethnic identity.
2.	The Government will assist members of all cultural groups to overcome cultural barriers to full participation in Canadian society.
The law can and will protect individuals from overt discrimination but there are more subtle barriers to entry into our society. A sense of not belonging, or a feeling of inferiority, whatever its cause, cannot be legislated out of existence. Programs outlined in this document have been designed to foster confidence in one's individual cultural identity and in one's rightful place in Canadian life. Histories, films and museum exhibits showing the great contributions of Canada's various cultural groups will help achieve this objective. But, we must emphasize that every Canadian must help eliminate discrimination. Every Canadian must contribute to the sense of national acceptance and belonging.
3.	The Government will promote creative encounters and interchange among all Canadian cultural groups in the interest of national unity.
As Canadians become more sensitive to their own ethnic identity and to the richness of our country, we will become more involved with one another and develop a greater acceptance of differences and a greater pride in our heritage. Cultural and intellectual creativity in almost all societies has been fostered by the interaction and creative relationship of different ethnic groups within that society. Government aid to multicultural centres, to specific projects of ethnic groups, and to displays of the performing and visual arts as well as the programs already mentioned, will promote cultural exchange. The Government has made it very clear that it does not plan on aiding individual groups to cut themselves off from the rest of society. The programs are designed to encourage cultural groups to share their heritage with all other Canadians and with other countries, and to make us all aware of our cultural diversity.
4.	The Government will continue to assist immigrants to acquire at least one of Canada's official languages in order to become full participants in Canadian society.
The federal government, through the Manpower and Immigration Department and the Citizenship Branch of the Department of the Secretary of State, already assists the provinces in language training for adults, but new arrivals in Canada require additional help to adjust to Canadian life, and to participate fully in the economic and social life of Canada.

[Stage Direction]
Six programs have been developed to implement the policy of the federal government. These programs will be carried out under the administration of the Citizenship
[Stage Direction]
October 8, 1971
Branch of the Department of the Secretary of State with the exception of those proposed by the federal cultural agencies which will be administered by the agencies concerned but co-ordinated through an Inter-Agency Coordinating Committee.
Program I
Multicultural Grants
A grants program has been developed to meet specific recommendations in the commission report and the demonstrated need of cultural groups. Grants will be made to activities which meet some or all of the four parts of the policy outlined in Part B.
Activities eligible for federal assistance will include multicultural encounters; organizational meetings for new cultural groups; citizenship preparation and immigrant orientation programs; conferences; youth activities; cultural exchanges between groups as well as other projects. Grants will also be made available for multicultural centres in areas where there is a demonstrated need and desire from the community for such a facility. Existing multicultural centres, like that in Winnipeg, have proven their value in providing services to help new immigrants adjust to Canadian life, and in promoting inter-ethnic activity on a continuous basis.
Program II
Culture Development Program
A culture development program will be instituted to produce much-needed data on the precise relationship of language to cultural development. It will provide essential information on the extent and nature of the demands of individual cultural groups for language retention and cultural development. It will examine existing organizations and facilities, including educational institutions, the press, radio and television to determine the part they now play and their potential role in cultural development. The study will incorporate those recommendations directed to the Canadian Radio-Television Commission for studies of the best means by which radio and television can_ contribute to the maintenance of language and cultures.
The program has been designed to produce results within one year. The data will serve as an information base for some of the other programs and for future long range planning by the Citizenship Branch, the cultural agencies, and other government departments.
The government is initiating steps to help provide textbooks for non-official language teaching, since Book IV of the royal commission's report found there are almost no textbooks suitable for teaching a third language to children living in Canada. The acquisition of the ancestral language is an important part of the process of developing a cultural identity, and the federal government proposes to discuss this with the provinces to find a mutually satisfactory way to meet some of the costs of preparation and production of third language textbooks or audio-visual aids for language teaching.
Although the commission made no formal recommendation regarding the ethnic press, aside from advocating
the continuation of existing government support in the form of advertising and information, the culture development program will also undertake a study of the ethnic press and other media which could be better utilized to carry essential information to those persons who use languages other than English or French. We recognize that the ethnic press plays an important part in bringing information to recent immigrants and elderly people who have difficulty reading Canada's official languages, as well as in helping to develop Canada's cultures.
Program III
Ethnic Histories
A clear need exists for the writing of objective analytical, and readable histories of the ethnic groups in Canada, and for the distribution of these works to as wide a readership as possible. The Citizenship Branch will commission 20 histories specifically directed to the background, contributions and problems of various cultural groups in Canada. The program will offer visible, effective and valuable recognition of the contribution of our diverse ethnic groups to Canada. It will promote knowledge of and respect for the cultural heritage of the groups concerned, as well as providing invaluable resource material for students, writers and government agencies.
Program IV
Canadian Ethnic Studies
The need exists, and was recognized by the commission, for systematic and continuous study of Canada's multi-ethnic society. The Department of the Secretary of State will therefore undertake a detailed investigation of the problems concerned with the development of a Canadian ethnic studies program or centre(s) and will prepare a plan of implementation.
Program V
Teaching of Official Languages
The federal government already assists the provinces in the teaching of English and French to adult immigrants, and accepts in principle recommendation four of the royal commission relating to special instruction in the appropriate official language for children who enter the public school system without a knowledge of that language.
The federal government therefore proposes to undertake discussions with the provinces to find a mutually acceptable form of federal assistance towards the teaching of official languages to children.
Program VI
Programs of the Federal Cultural Agencies
The government asked the federal cultural agencies referred to in Book IV to respond to the recommendations of the report. The programs they will be under-
October 8, 1971
[Stage Direction]
taking will enable all Canadians to gain an awareness of the cultural heritage of all of Canada's ethnic groups. National Museum of Man
The commission recommended "that the museum receive additional funds to carry out its projects regarding the history, social organizations and folk arts of cultural groups other than the British and French". The government concurs with this recommendation and will fund the following projects to be undertaken by the museum;
(a)	purchase of artifacts representing Canada's ethnic diversity;
(b)	research on the folk arts and music of the various ethnic communities in Canada;
(c)	other museum extension and educational projects designed to reach the public at large.
National Film Board
For many years, the Board has been producing versions of some of its films in languages other than English or French for use abroad in co-operation with the Department of External Affairs. The royal commission recommended that the board advertise that it has films in languages other than English and French and make these available for domestic consumption, and also expand its production of films that inform Canadians about one another, including films about the contributions and problems of all our various ethnic groups. The board has indicated that it will not only respond positively to these recommendations, but that it will also survey the cultural communities in order to determine what types of film they would like produced in their ancestral languages.
National Library
Although many public libraries in Canada do have collections of books in non-official languages, the supply is well below the demand. The Canadian Library Association has studied the problem and has recommended the creation of a multicultural language and literature centre at the National Library. The Library will embark immediately on a preliminary study leading to the creation of this centre. The centre will administer a program designed to deposit in local libraries books in languages other than English and French. The library will also acquire publications produced by and for nonEnglish, non-French groups in Canada.
Public Archives
The Public Archives in Ottawa has relatively few holdings relating to Canada's various cultural groups or their activities. The same is true of most archives across the country. Such material should be collected, since the history of immigration and cultural groups is an integral part of the history of this country.
The Public Archives will be given funds to acquire the records and papers of all the various ethnic organizations and associations which are significant documents of Canadian history.

[Stage Direction]
Interdepartmental Co-ordination
To enable the Citizenship Branch to fulfill its task of implementing the policy proposed in this document, arrangements will be made for co-ordinating the activities of various departments and federal cultural agencies. All the agencies responsible for the programs proposed have agreed to establish an inter-agency coordinating committee, and an interdepartmental committee will be established to undertake an ongoing review of federal government policies and programmes to ensure that they reflect the cultural groups in our society.
Consultation
The various cultural communities must have an opportunity to influence the decision-making process by a continuing consultative process. A variety of consultative procedures-public conferences, private meetings with group leaders, confidential consultation sessions with specialists, seminars, press analysis, and others-have shown themselves effective, and will be continued and intensified at the local, regional and national levels.
Federal-Provincial Considerations
The commission addresses six of its recommendations to the provinces. Three of these concern education, two deal with human rights and one calls upon the provinces to support cultural organizations. The growing provincial interest and public action in the field of multiculturalism make it imperative that the two levels of government co-operate. Patchwork programs and jurisdictional confusion will result unless an attempt is made to co-ordinate federal and provincial policies at the ministerial level and good relationships are established between the officials administering the programmes.
Once the results of the culture development research program are available it is proposed that the provinces be invited to participate in a federal-provincial meeting at the senior official level, in preparation for a possible ministerial meeting.

[Stage Direction]
1.	Recommendation 1
We recommend that any provinces that have not yet enacted fair employment practices, fair accommodation practices, or housing legislation prohibiting discrimination because of race, creed, colour, nationality, ancestry, or place of origin, do so and that this legislation be made binding upon the Crown and its agencies. We further recommend that all provinces make provision for fulltime administrators of their human rights legislation. (No. 152)*
* (The numbers in brackets refer to the relevant paragraphs in Book IV of the Royal Commission's Report.)
[Stage Direction]
October 8, 1971
Response
This is directed primarily to the provinces but the federal government has the whole question of human rights under consideration.
2.	Recommendation 2
We recommend that the same conditions for citizenship, the right to vote, and to stand for election to public office be accorded to all immigrants, with no regard to their country of origin. (No. 233)
Response
The Canada Elections Act (proclaimed April 12, 1971) and intended amendments to the Citizenship Act now in preparation provide for the equality called for in this recommendation.
3.	Recommendation 3
We recommend that the teaching of languages other than English and French, and cultural subjects related to them, be incorporated as options in the public elementary school program, where there is sufficient demand for such classes. (No. 378)
Response
Elementary school education is a provincial concern, but the government plans to undertake a major research project on the relationship of language to cultural retention and development. It also plans to discuss with the provinces and cultural groups ways of assisting in the development and duplication of new teaching aids for languages and cultures other than English and French.
4.	Recommendation 4
We recommend that special instruction in the appropriate official language be provided for children who enter the public school system with an inadequate knowledge of that language; that provincial authorities specify the terms and conditions of financial assistance for such special instruction; and that the federal authorities assist the provinces in mutually acceptable ways through grants for the additional cost incurred. (No. 383)
Response
The federal government approves in principle aid towards the teaching of official languages to children of immigrants, and will be discussing it with the provinces.
5.	Recommendation 5
We recommend that more advanced instruction and a wider range of options in languages other than English and French, and in cultural subjects related to them, be provided in public high schools, where there is sufficient demand for such classes. (No. 390)
Response
This is primarily a matter of provincial jurisdiction. However the development of new teaching aids (noted in the reponse to Recommendation 3) and the ethnic histories programme will be useful in the high schools. The Prime Minister's letter to each of the provincial premiers urges a positive response to all those recommendations which touch upon provincial authority.
6.	Recommendation 6
We recommend that Canadian universities broaden their practices in giving standing or credits for studies in modern languages other than French and English both for admission and for degrees. (No. 443)
Response
This is primarily a matter for consideration by the academic institutions.
7.	Recommendation 7
We recommend that Canadian universities expand their studies in the fields of the humanities and the social sciences relating to particular areas other than those related to the English and French languages. (No. 458)
Response
This is primarily a matter for consideration by the academic institutions.
8.	Recommendation 8
We recommend that the CRTC remove restrictions on private broadcasting in languages other than English and French, except those restrictions necessary to meet the administrative and legal responsibilities of the licensees and those that also apply to English-and French-language programs. (No. 538)
Response
The CRTC has agreed to place this matter before the Commission in the very near future.
9.	Recommendation 9
We recommend that the CBC recognize the place of languages other than English and French in Canadian life and that the CBC remove its proscription on the use of other languages in broadcasting. (No. 539)
Response
The CBC has not agreed to the spirit of this recommendation. The question of broadcasting in non-official languages will be considered within the major research project.
10.	Recommendation 10
We recommend that the CRTC undertake studies in the field of broadcasting in other languages to determine the best means by which radio and television can contribute to the maintenance of languages and cultures and that the CBC participate in these studies. We further recommend that these studies include pilot projects on either AM or FM radio in both Montreal and Toronto. (No. 542)
Response
The CRTC has agreed to undertake these studies, and the CBC has agreed to cooperate. The studies will be carried on within the total framework of the major research project on language retention which will be directed by the Citizenship Branch of the Department of the Secretary of State.
11.	Recommendation 11
We recommend that research be undertaken through the CRTC concerning the nature and effects of the por-
October 8, 1971
[Stage Direction]
trayal of other cultural groups on both publicly-and privately-owned English-and-French-language radio and television stations. (No. 546).
Response
This study will be broadened to include all the media and will be carried on within the major research project mentioned above.
12.	Recommendation 12
We recommend that the National Film Board undertake to publicize the fact that it produces prints of many of its films in languages other than English and French, particularly in regions where there are concentrations of persons who speak languages other than English and French. In addition, we recommend that the voluntary associations of cultural groups stimulate interest among their groups in the use of these films. (No. 553)
Response
The multicultural programme to be undertaken by the National Film Board meets this recommendation.
13.	Recommendation 13
We recommend that the National Film Board continue and develop the production of films that inform Canadians about one another, including films about the contribution and problems of both individuals and groups of ethnic origin other than British and French, and that the National Film Board receive the financial support it requires in order to produce such films. (No. 555)
Response
The multicultural program to be undertaken by the National Film Board meets this recommendation.
14.	Recommendation 14
We recommend that the appropriate federal, provincial, and municipal agencies receive the financial means
they require to maintain and extend their support to cultural and research organizations whose objectives are to foster the arts and letters of cultural groups other than the British and French. (No. 642)
Response
The grants program administered by the Citizenship Branch of the Department of the Secretary of State will provide funds to assist such organizations.
15.	Recommendation 15
We recommend that the administrative costs of the Canadian Folk Arts Council or a similar body be provided for out of public funds through the Citizenship Branch of the Department of the Secretary of State. (No. 643.)
Response
The Canadian Folk Arts Council already receives an annual grant for administrative purposes from the Arts and Culture Branch of the Department of the Secretary of State. In the Citizenship Branch, requests for grants to pay for specific projects suggested by the Canadian Folk Arts Council or similar bodies will continue to receive consideration if they meet the objectives of the multicultural program.
16.	Recommendation 16
We recommend that the National Museum of Man be given adequate space and facilities and provided with sufficient funds to carry out its projects regarding the history, social organizations, and folk arts of cultural groups other than the British and French. (No. 646.)
Response
The multicultural program of the National Museum of Man meets this recommendation.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, October 12, 1971