1973-06-13

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders in the two official languages-Mr. Duquet (Quebec East).
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Mr, Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Section 19 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Chapter E-2, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, to lay upon the table of the House a certified copy of the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Saskatchewan, 1973.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill S-7, an act respecting the National Dental Examining Board of Canada, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.


NATIONAL CAPITAL
Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in the interest of maintaining the physical fitness of members of the House and members of the Press Gallery I should like, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), to table a statement regarding the doubling of
the length of the bicycle paths in the National Capital Region and a statement on walks within the national capital. I would hope that members of the House and residents of the capital region would use both facilities to their utmost.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the order: Motions:
May 28, 1973-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):
That the first report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, presented to the House on February 23, 1973, be concurred in.
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move this motion today, seconded by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), but perhaps the House would be willing to take it into consideration after the oral question period.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, in commenting on the point raised by my friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I would remind the House that we have a very important measure slated for discussion this afternoon.


An hon. Member:: Why didn't you bring it on last March?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I merely wish to advise my hon. friend, who is interested in this subject matter, that it is the intention of the government to put on notice next Tuesday a bill dealing with the subject matter of the report to which he seeks to move concurrence. That notice cannot be put down before then because the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) will not be able to complete consultations with veterans' organizations until early next week. In light of that, possibly the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre might stand his motion until a later date when he may move it, if he wishes, in the event this undertaking is not carried out.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I say a word on that point of order. As the House knows, we have waited a long time for this legislation. However, in view of the firm undertaking that the bill will be presented to the House on Tuesday, and provided my seconder concurs, I shall let this motion stand until Tuesday.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Order Paper Questions


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government Notices of Motions:
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, if I may rise on a point of order, I neglected to rise on motions to advise the House that it had been the intention to call an opposition day on Friday but as a result of consultations that opposition day will be called tomorrow. I wish to advise the House formally of arrangements that have already been made informally.


Mr. Baldwin:: That is quite agreeable, Mr. Speaker.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Rodriguez: 1.	What were the names of corporations which received subsidies under the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Remission Program (MVM) in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71,1971-72, 1972-73 to date, and what were the amounts of money remitted in each case?
2.	What are the objectives of the above program?
3.	Has the department conducted any evaluative study of the program and, if so, what was the date of the latest report?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: 1. No subsidies were given to motor vehicle manufacturers in any of the years specified.
2.	The objective of this tariff remission program is to help Canadian manufacturers of automotive parts and accessories to improve their competitive position by encouraging modernization and efficiency in their industry. This program provides for the remission of duty and sales tax on duty, on machinery and equipment used in the production of original equipment automotive parts, accessories, and tooling when such machinery and equipment is not available from Canadian manufacturers in time to meet production schedules.
3.	The program is under continuous evaluation and review.


Mr. Hueglin: 1.	(a) What are the statistics collected from hospitals of numbers of cases of drug overdoses treated during the years 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972 (b) if these figures are not available, for what reason and are any actions planned to secure such information?
2.	What are the statistics by drug category of drugs seized by law enforcement or customs officers during the years 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972?
3.	What were the number of law enforcement officers specifically assigned to deal with drug problems during the same years?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by Statistics Canada and the Department of the Solicitor General as follows: 1. (a) Statistics collected by the provinces from hospitals and submitted to Statistics Canada relate to all adverse reactions to drugs, (including adverse reactions due to overdoses), for which hospital care was received. Adverse reactions due to overdoses are not separately identified. No information is available for care given by hospitals on an outpatient basis to persons with adverse drug reactions; (b) the figures requested are not available from Statistics Canada as the data collection systems maintained by provincial governments do not identify drug overdose cases. Statistics Canada does not have plans to secure this information at this time.
2.	Seizures by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police:
Categories
Fiscal Year Marihuana Hashish	Heroin
1968- 69	848 lbs.	84 lbs. Total not available1969- 70	618 lbs.	1,171 lbs.	38 lbs.
(2,089 capsules)
1970- 71	2,692 lbs.	826 lbs.	58 lbs.
(26,431 plants)	(12,739 capsules)
1971- 72	4,237 lbs.	3,957 lbs.	195 lbs.
(93,521 plants)	(17,571 capsules)
1 April 1972 to	6,445 lbs.	1,971 lbs.	70 lbs.
31 December 1972 (13,238 plants) (solid) (27,922 capsules)
104 lbs.
(liquid)
3.	Number of RCMP Personnel
Specifically Assigned
Fiscal Year	(as of 1 April)
1968-	69	
861969-	70	
1081970-	71	
1601971-	72	
1961972-	73	
297


Mr. Gillies: Is the government considering a change in its position of not allowing Rental Income to qualify as Income from Active Business for the purposes of the Small Business deduction and (a) if so, what are those changes (b) if not, for what reason?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: The determination of whether rental income represents income from an active business is a question to be decided on the basis of the facts in each case. If the facts indicate that the rental operation is an active business, the rental income will qualify for the small business deduction under paragraph 125 (1) (a) of the Income Tax Act; otherwise, it would be treated as investment income.
June 13, 1973


Mr. Cossitt: Does the Department of Justice maintain a list of lawyers approved to act on behalf of the Government in the Province of Newfoundland and, if so (a) what are the names on this list and if they are designated for government work in a specific electoral district, what is the name of the electoral district in each case (b) what considerations are involved in selecting names for this list
(i)	are executive officers of the Liberal Party, Liberal Members of Parliament or Liberal candidates consulted in compiling this list
(ii)	specifically are there any requirements that the individuals on the list be members, supporters or contributors of the Liberal Party in order to be included?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Exclusive control of all legal business of the federal government is vested in the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada by the Department of Justice Act, except non-litigious business of certain of the statutory agents of Her Majesty which are entrusted with their own funds. Cases are handled either by permanent staff of the Department of Justice or its regional offices or by the appointment of a legal agent who will act on instructions of the Department of Justice or the client department. An agent is an agent of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada regardless of how he receives his instructions and, where he deems the circumstances to require it, he can report to, and seek instructions from, the Deputy Minister of Justice. When considering counsel for appointment as agents of the Attorney General of Canada the type of case is taken into account and a counsel's specialization in that area of the law considered before appointment is made. Further, the factor of experience in dealing with the class of subject also is taken into consideration. The Minister of Justice, under statute, has always been charged with the responsibility to appoint competent legal agents to handle civil and criminal cases on behalf of the government that are not handled directly by legal staff of the department. All governments in the past have observed the unchallenged principle that the choice of agents to act on behalf of the minister rests with him, and that the criterion for appointment is one of competence. Advice on appointment of agents is taken from numerous sources including, at times, local bar societies. The final choice of legal agents is simply a matter of judgment and there is no single set procedure for receiving recommendations. The object of receiving recommendations from various sources is to ensure that the best available counsel are known to the department should their services be required in future. The recommendation of counsel does not signify approval or authority "to act on behalf of the government" at this point of time, as a lawyer only becomes an agent of the Attorney General after a case has arisen and instructions have been issued by the Department of Justice or the client department. Regardless from what quarter a recommendation is received the test of competence is the basis for appointment.


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,948
Mr. Cossitt:: Does the Department of Justice maintain a list of lawyers approved to act on behalf of the Government in the Province of
Order Paper Questions
British Columbia and, if so (a) what are the names on this list and if they are designated for government work in a specific electoral district, what is the name of the electoral district in each case (b) what considerations are involved in selecting names for this list
(i)	are executive officers of the Liberal Party, Liberal Members of Parliament or Liberal candidates consulted in compiling this list
(ii)	specifically are there any requirements that the individuals on the list be members, supporters or contributors of the Liberal Party in order to be included?


Otto Emil Lang: Exclusive control of all legal business of the federal government is vested in the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada by the Department of Justice Act, except non-litigious business of certain of the statutory agents of Her Majesty which are entrusted with their own funds. Cases are handled either by permanent staff of the Department of Justice or its regional offices or by the appointment of a legal agent who will act on instructions of the Department of Justice or the client department. An agent is an agent of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada regardless of how he receives his instructions and, where he deems the circumstances to require it, he can report to, and seek instructions from, the Deputy Minister of Justice. When considering counsel for appointment as agents of the Attorney General of Canada the type of case is taken into account and a counsel's specialization in that area of the law considered before appointment is made. Further, the factor of experience in dealing with the class of subject also is taken into consideration. The Minister of Justice, under statute, has always been charged with the responsibility to appoint competent legal agents to handle civil and criminal cases on behalf of the government that are not handled directly by legal staff of the department. All governments in the past have observed the unchallenged principle that the choice of agents to act on behalf of the minister rests with him, and that the criterion for appointment is one of competence. Advice on appointment of agents is taken from numerous sources including, at times, local bar societies. The final choice of legal agents is simply a matter of judgment and there is no single set procedure for receiving recommendations. The object of receiving recommendations from various sources is to ensure that the best available counsel are known to the department should their services be required in future. The recommendation of counsel does not signify approval or authority "to act on behalf of the government" at this point of time, as a lawyer only becomes an agent of the Attorney General after a case has arisen and instructions have been issued by the Department of Justice or the client department. Regardless from what quarter a recommendation is received the test of competence is the basis for appointment.


Mr. Cossitt: Does the Department of Justice maintain a list of lawyers approved to act on behalf of the Government in the Province of Alberta and, if so (a) what are the names on this list and if they are designated for government work in a specific electoral district, what is the name of the electoral district in each case (b) what considerations are involved in selecting names for this list (i) are executive officers of the Liberal Party, Liberal Members of Parliament or Liberal candidates consulted in compiling this list (ii)
4704

June 13, 1973
Order Paper Questions
specifically are there any requirements that the individuals on the list be members, supporters or contributors of the Liberal Party in order to be included?


Otto Emil Lang: Exclusive control of all legal business of the federal government is vested in the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada by the Department of Justice Act, except non-litigious business of certain of the statutory agents of Her Majesty which are entrusted with their own funds. Cases are handled either by permanent staff of the Department of Justice or its regional offices or by the appointment of a legal agent who will act on instructions of the Department of Justice or the client department. An agent is an agent of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada regardless of how he receives his instructions and, where he deems the circumstances to require it, he can report to, and seek instructions from, the Deputy Minister of Justice. When considering counsel for appointment as agents of the Attorney General of Canada the type of case is taken into account and a counsel's specialization in that area of the law considered before appointment is made. Further, the factor of experience in dealing with the class of subject also is taken into consideration. The Minister of Justice, under statute, has always been charged with the responsibility to appoint competent legal agents to handle civil and criminal cases on behalf of the government that are not handled directly by legal staff of the department. All governments in the past have observed the unchallenged principle that the choice of agents to act on behalf of the minister rests with him, and that the criterion for appointment is one of competence. Advice on appointment of agents is taken from numerous sources including, at times, local bar societies. The final choice of legal agents is simply a matter of judgment and there is no single set procedure for receiving recommendations. The object of receiving recommendations from various sources is to ensure that the best available counsel are known to the department should their services be required in future. The recommendation of counsel does not signify approval or authority "to act on behalf of the government" at this point of time, as a lawyer only becomes an agent of the Attorney General after a case has arisen and instructions have been issued by the Department of Justice or the client department. Regardless from what quarter a recommendation is received the test of competence is the basis for appointment.


Mr. Cossitt: Does the Department of Justice maintain a list of lawyers approved to act on behalf of the Government in the Province of Saskatchewan and, if so (a) what are the names on this list and if they are designated for government work in a specific electoral district, what is the name of the electoral district in each case (b) what considerations are involved In selecting names for this list
(i)	are executive officers of the Liberal Party, Liberal Members of Parliament or Liberal candidates consulted in compiling this list
(ii)	specifically are there any requirements that the individuals on the list be members, supporters or contributors of the Liberal Party in order to be included?


Otto Emil Lang: Exclusive control of all legal business of the federal government is

vested in the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada by the Department of Justice Act, except non-litigious business of certain of the statutory agents of Her Majesty which are entrusted with their own funds. Cases are handled either by permanent staff of the Department of Justice or its regional offices or by the appointment of a legal agent who will act on instructions of the Department of Justice or the client department. An agent is an agent of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada regardless of how he receives his instructions and, where he deems the circumstances to require it, he can report to, and seek instructions from, the Deputy Minister of Justice. When considering counsel for appointment as agents of the Attorney General of Canada the type of case is taken into account and a counsel's specialization in that area of the law considered before appointment is made. Further, the factor of experience in dealing with the class of subject also is taken into consideration. The Minister of Justice, under statute, has always been charged with the responsibility to appoint competent legal agents to handle civil and criminal cases on behalf of the government that are not handled directly by legal staff of the department. All governments in the past have observed the unchallenged principle that the choice of agents to act on behalf of the minister rests with him, and that the criterion for appointment is one of competence. Advice on appointment of agents is taken from numerous sources including, at times, local bar societies. The final choice of legal agents is simply a matter of judgment and there is no single set procedure for receiving recommendations. The object of receiving recommendations from various sources is to ensure that the best available counsel are known to the department should their services be required in future. The recommendation of counsel does not signify approval or authority "to act on behalf of the government" at this point of time, as a lawyer only becomes an agent of the Attorney General after a case has arisen and instructions have been issued by the Department of Justice or the client department. Regardless from what quarter a recommendation is received the test of competence is the basis for appointment.


Mr. Cossitt: Does the Department of Justice maintain a list of lawyers approved to act on behalf of the Government in the Province of Manitoba and, if so (a) what are the names on this list and if they are designated for government work in a specific electoral district, what is the name of the electoral district in each case (b) what considerations are involved in selecting names for this list (i) are executive officers of the Liberal Party, Liberal Members of Parliament or Liberal candidates consulted in compiling this list (ii) specifically are there any requirements that the individuals on the list be members, supporters or contributors of the Liberal Party in order to be included?


Otto Emil Lang: Exclusive control of all legal business of the federal government is vested in the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada by the Department of Justice Act, except non-litigious business of certain of the statutory agents of Her Majesty which are entrusted with their own funds. Cases are handled either by permanent staff of the Department
June 13, 1973

of Justice or its regional offices or by the appointment of a legal agent who will act on instructions of the Department of Justice or the client department. An agent is an agent of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada regardless of how he receives his instructions and, where he deems the circumstances to require it, he can report to, and seek instructions from, the Deputy Minister of Justice. When considering counsel for appointment as agents of the Attorney General of Canada the type of case is taken into account and a counsel's specialization in that area of the law considered before appointment is made. Further, the factor of experience in dealing with the class of subject also is taken into consideration. The Minister of Justice, under statute, has always been charged with the responsibility to appoint competent legal agents to handle civil and criminal cases on behalf of the government that are not handled directly by legal staff of the department. All governments in the past have observed the unchallenged principle that the choice of agents to act on behalf of the minister rests with him, and that the criterion for appointment is one of competence. Advice on appointment of agents is taken from numerous sources including, at times, local bar societies. The final choice of legal agents is simply a matter of judgment and there is no single set procedure for receiving recommendations. The object of receiving recommendations from various sources is to ensure that the best available counsel are known to the department should their services be required in future. The recommendation of counsel does not signify approval or authority "to act on behalf of the government" at this point of time, as a lawyer only becomes an agent of the Attorney General after a case has arisen and instructions have been issued by the Department of Justice or the client department. Regardless from what quarter a recommendation is received the test of competence is the basis for appointment.


Mr. Cossitt: Does the Department of Justice maintain a list of lawyers approved to act on behalf of the Government in the Province of Ontario and, if so (a) what are the names on this list and if they are designated for government work in a specific electoral district, what is the name of the electoral district in each case (b) what considerations are involved in selecting names for this list (i) are executive officers of the Liberal Party, Liberal Members of Parliament or Liberal candidates consulted in compiling this list (ii) specifically are there any requirements that the individuals on the list be members, supporters or contributors of the Liberal Party in order to be included?


Otto Emil Lang: Exclusive control of all legal business of the federal government is vested in the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada by the Department of Justice Act, except non-litigious business of certain of the statutory agents of Her Majesty which are entrusted with their own funds. Cases are handled either by permanent staff of the Department of Justice or its regional offices or by the appointment of a legal agent who will act on instructions of the Department of Justice or the client department. An agent is an agent of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada regardless of how he receives his instructions and, where
Order Paper Questions
he deems the circumstances to require it, he can report to, and seek instructions from, the Deputy Minister of Justice. When considering counsel for appointment as agents of the Attorney General of Canada the type of case is taken into account and a counsel's specialization in that area of the law considered before appointment is made. Further, the factor of experience in dealing with the class of subject also is taken into consideration. The Minister of Justice, under statute, has always been charged with the responsibility to appoint competent legal agents to handle civil and criminal cases on behalf of the government that are not handled directly by legal staff of the department. All governments in the past have observed the unchallenged principle that the choice of agents to act on behalf of the minister rests with him, and that the criterion for appointment is one of competence. Advice on appointment of agents is taken from numerous sources including, at times, local bar societies. The final choice of legal agents is simply a matter of judgment and there is no single set procedure for receiving recommendations. The object of receiving recommendations from various sources is to ensure that the best available counsel are known to the department should their services be required in future. The recommendation of counsel does not signify approval or authority "to act on behalf of the government" at this point of time, as a lawyer only becomes an agent of the Attorney General after a case has arisen and instructions have been issued by the Department of Justice or the client department. Regardless from what quarter a recommendation is received the test of competence is the basis for appointment.


Mr. Cossitt: Does the Department of Justice maintain a list of lawyers approved to act on behalf of the Government in the Province of Quebec and, if so (a) what are the names on this list and if they are designated for government work in a specific electoral district, what is the name of the electoral district in each case (b) what considerations are involved in selecting names for this list (i) are executive officers of the Liberal Party, Liberal Members of Parliament or Liberal candidates consulted in compiling this list (ii) specifically are there any requirements that the individuals on the list be members, supporters or contributors of the Liberal Party in order to be included?


Otto Emil Lang: Exclusive control of all legal business of the federal government is vested in the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada by the Department of Justice Act, except non-litigious business of certain of the statutory agents of Her Majesty which are entrusted with their own funds. Cases are handled either by permanent staff of the Department of Justice or its regional offices or by the appointment of a legal agent who will act on instructions of the Department of Justice or the client department. An agent is an agent of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada regardless of how he receives his instructions and, where he deems the circumstances to require it, he can report to, and seek instructions from, the Deputy Minister of Justice. When considering counsel for appointment as agents of the Attorney General of Canada the type of case is taken into account and a counsel's specialization in that
26446-8i

June 13, 1973
Order Paper Questions
area of the law considered before appointment is made. Further, the factor of experience in dealing with the class of subject also is taken into consideration. The Minister of Justice, under statute, has always been charged with the responsibility to appoint competent legal agents to handle civil and criminal cases on behalf of the government that are not handled directly by legal staff of the department. All governments in the past have observed the unchallenged principle that the choice of agents to act on behalf of the minister rests with him, and that the criterion for appointment is one of competence. Advice on appointment of agents is taken from numerous sources including, at times, local bar societies. The final choice of legal agents is simply a matter of judgment and there is no single set procedure for receiving recommendations. The object of receiving recommendations from various sources is to ensure that the best available counsel are known to the department should their services be required in future. The recommendation of counsel does not signify approval or authority "to act on behalf of the government" at this point of time, as a lawyer only becomes an agent of the Attorney General after a case has arisen and instructions have been issued by the Department of Justice or the client department. Regardless from what quarter a recommendation is received the test of competence is the basis for appointment.


Mr. Cossitt: Does the Department of Justice maintain a list of lawyers approved to act on behalf of the Government in the Province of New Brunswick and, if so (a) what are the names on this list and if they are designated for government work in a specific electoral district, what is the name of the electoral district in each case (b) what considerations are involved in selecting names for this list
(i)	are executive officers of the Liberal Party, Liberal Members of Parliament or Liberal candidates consulted in compiling this list
(ii)	specifically are there any requirements that the individuals on the list be members, supporters or contributors of the Liberal Party in order to be included?


Otto Emil Lang: Exclusive control of all legal business of the federal government is vested in the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada by the Department of Justice Act, except non-litigious business of certain of the statutory agents of Her Majesty which are entrusted with their own funds. Cases are handled either by permanent staff of the Department of Justice or its regional offices or by the appointment of a legal agent who will act on instructions of the Department of Justice or the client department. An agent is an agent of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada regardless of how he receives his instructions and, where he deems the circumstances to require it, he can report to, and seek instructions from, the Deputy Minister of Justice. When considering counsel for appointment as agents of the Attorney General of Canada the type of case is taken into account and a counsel's specialization in that area of the law considered before appointment is made. Further, the factor of experience in dealing with the class of subject also is taken into consideration. The Minister of Justice, under statute, has always been charged with the responsibility to appoint competent legal agents to handle

civil and criminal cases on behalf of the government that are not handled directly by legal staff of the department. All governments in the past have observed the unchallenged principle that the choice of agents to act on behalf of the minister rests with him, and that the criterion for appointment is one of competence. Advice on appointment of agents is taken from numerous sources including, at times, local bar societies. The final choice of legal agents is simply a matter of judgment and there is no single set procedure for receiving recommendations. The object of receiving recommendations from various sources is to ensure that the best available counsel are known to the department should their services be required in future. The recommendation of counsel does not signify approval or authority "to act on behalf of the government" at this point of time, as a lawyer only becomes an agent of the Attorney General after a case has arisen and instructions have been issued by the Department of Justice or the client department. Regardless from what quarter a recommendation is received the test of competence is the basis for appointment.


Mr. Cossitt: Does the Department of Justice maintain a list of lawyers approved to act on behalf of the Government in the Province of Nova Scotia and, if so (a) what are the names on this list and if they are designated for government work in a specific electoral district, what is the name of the electoral district in each case (b) what considerations are involved in selecting names for this list
(i)	are executive officers of the Liberal Party, Liberal Members of Parliament or Liberal candidates consulted in compiling this list
(ii)	specifically are there any requirements that the individuals on the list be members, supporters or contributors of the Liberal Party in order to be included?


Otto Emil Lang: Exclusive control of all legal business of the federal government is vested in the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada by the Department of Justice Act, except non-litigious business of certain of the statutory agents of Her Majesty which are entrusted with their own funds. Cases are handled either by permanent staff of the Department of Justice or its regional offices or by the appointment of a legal agent who will act on instructions of the Department of Justice or the client department. An agent is an agent of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada regardless of how he receives his instructions and, where he deems the circumstances to require it, he can report to, and seek instructions from, the Deputy Minister of Justice. When considering counsel for appointment as agents of the Attorney General of Canada the type of case is taken into account and a counsel's specialization in that area of the law considered before appointment is made. Further, the factor of experience in dealing with the class of subject also is taken into consideration. The Minister of Justice, under statute, has always been charged with the responsibility to appoint competent legal agents to handle civil and criminal cases on behalf of the government that are not handled directly by legal staff of the department. All governments in the past have observed the unchallenged principle that the choice of agents to act on behalf of the minister rests with him, and that the criterion for
June 13, 1973

appointment is one of competence. Advice on appointment of agents is taken from numerous sources including, at times, local bar societies. The final choice of legal agents is simply a matter of judgment and there is no single set procedure for receiving recommendations. The object of receiving recommendations from various sources is to ensure that the best available counsel are known to the department should their services be required in future. The recommendation of counsel does not signify approval or authority "to act on behalf of the government" at this point of time, as a lawyer only becomes an agent of the Attorney General after a case has arisen and instructions have been issued by the Department of Justice or the client department. Regardless from what quarter a recommendation is received the test of competence is the basis for appointment.


Mr. Cossitt: Does the Department of Justice maintain a list of lawyers approved to act on behalf of the Government in the Province of Prince Edward Island and, if so (a) what are the names on this list and if they are designated for government work in a specific electoral district, what is the name of the electoral district in each case (b) what considerations are involved in selecting names for this list (i) are executive officers of the Liberal Party, Liberal Members of Parliament or Liberal candidates consulted in compiling this list (ii) specifically are there any requirements that the individuals on the list be members, supporters or contributors of the Liberal Party in order to be included?


Otto Emil Lang: Exclusive control of all legal business of the federal government is vested in the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada by the Department of Justice Act, except non-litigious business of certain of the statutory agents of Her Majesty which are entrusted with their own funds. Cases are handled either by permanent staff of the Department of Justice or its regional offices or by the appointment of a legal agent who will act on instructions of the Department of Justice or the client department. An agent is an agent of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada regardless of how he receives his instructions and, where he deems the circumstances to require it, he can report to, and seek instructions from, the Deputy Minister of Justice. When considering counsel for appointment as agents of the Attorney General of Canada the type of case is taken into account and a counsel's specialization in that area of the law considered before appointment is made. Further, the factor of experience in dealing with the class of subject also is taken into consideration. The Minister of Justice, under statute, has always been charged with the responsibility to appoint competent legal agents to handle civil and criminal cases on behalf of the government that are not handled directly by legal staff of the department. All governments in the past have observed the unchallenged principle that the choice of agents to act on behalf of the minister rests with him, and that the criterion for appointment is one of competence. Advice on appointment of agents is taken from numerous sources including, at times, local bar societies. The final choice of legal agents is simply a matter of judgment and there is no single set procedure for receiving recommendations. The object of
Order Paper Questions
receiving recommendations from various sources is to ensure that the best available counsel are known to the department should their services be required in future. The recommendation of counsel does not signify approval or authority "to act on behalf of the government" at this point of time, as a lawyer only becomes an agent of the Attorney General after a case has arisen and instructions have been issued by the Department of Justice or the client department. Regardless from what quarter a recommendation is received the test of competence is the basis for appointment.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	How much money has the government given the Canadian Film Development Corporation in grants since 1968?
2.	What percentage of this total money has gone to Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia?
3.	Is it the responsibility of CFDC to create a film industry in various parts of Canada or to support and help expand the film industry in areas where the talent, machinery and saleable conditions are present?
4.	Is the British Columbia share of the total CFDC grant less than that of Ontario or Quebec and, if so (a) for what reason (b) does the government intend to request CFDC to allocate their grants equitably to all regions of Canada?
5.	Is Mr. Michael Spencer employed in any capacity by CFDC and, if so (a) what is his position (b) is he authorized to make policy statements on behalf of CFDC?
6.	Is it the policy of CFDC to make grants for feature films on the basis of interest to local or regional areas and, if so, for what reasons?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: 1.
The government does not give grants to the Canadian Film Development Corporation. The CFDC Act of March 10, 1967, chapter 78, provided that a sum of $10 million be made available to the Corporation for loans and investments in Canadian feature films as well as for grants to film makers, quality awards, and the cost of administration. This sum was increased by a further $10 million in 1971-72 by Secretary of State Vote 63(a).
2.	I am informed by the Canadian Film Development Corporation that the Corporation does not keep records of individual amounts expended in each province. In principle, it invests or lends up to 50 per cent of the budget of individual Canadian feature films and, as at March 31, 1973, had invested in 117 films. Of these 68 were initiated by companies with headquarters in Quebec, 35 by companies with headquarters in Ontario, 13 (including seven short films) by companies with headquarters in British Columbia, and one in Alberta. Two of the films produced by companies based in Ontario and Quebec were shot in British Columbia . One film shot in Calgary is in the process of being finished in Vancouver. On the other hand, the finishing processes of some of the films made in British Columbia were undertaken in Ontario.
3.	The responsibility of the CFDC is to invest or lend money for the production of Canadian feature films. It provides financial assistance for producers in any part of Canada where feature films, which meet the conditions of the Corporation, can be produced.
4.	See answer to parts 2 and 3.

Order Paper Questions
5.	Yes; (a) Executive Director; (b) When the Corporation makes policy statements, it is Mr. Spencer's responsibility to communicate such statements to the film industry.
6.	See answer to part 3.


Mr. Stevens: What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the County of Simcoe, in the Province of Ontario, who performed services for the Department of Justice during each of the years 1971 and 1972 and what was the total amount of money paid to each one?


Otto Emil Lang: 
[Stage Direction]
Bingham, W. Griffith, Bingham Block, 24 Mississaga St. E., Orillia	$ 2,000.00
Bowerman, John D., Box 730, Alliston, Ontario	140.00
Haig, Douglas G., 208 King Street, Midland	1,670.90
Kendall, Edward B., 232 King St., Midland	289.10
Cowan & Cowan, 53 Collie St., Barrie, Ontario	1,454.00
J. W. Moorby, 17 Owen St., Barrie, Ontario	820.00
Moore & Clegg, Box 157, Orillia, Ontario	997.85
Bruce A. Owen, Box 56, Barrie, Ontario	7,456.00
Wilson, Graham, Palmer & Bumstead, Box 601, Barrie, Ontario	2,674.00
1972 Bingham, W. Griffith, Bingham Block, 24 Mississaga St. E., Orillia	1,632.35
Booth, Norman L., 73 Mississaga St. E., Orillia	262.00
Mr. Stevens: What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in Metropolitan Toronto, in the Province of Ontario, who performed services for the Department of Justice during each of the years 1971 and 1972 and what was the total amount of money paid to each one?


Otto Emil Lang: The following lawyers and law firms in Metropolitan Toronto, Ontario, acted as agents of the Attorney General of Canada on behalf of client departments:
Hogg, Stanton B.,
425 University Ave.,
Toronto, Ontario Honsberger, John D.,
Federal Bldg.,
Toronto, Ontario MacKinnon, B. J.,
365 Bay Street,
Toronto, Ontario
Bowman, D. G. H.,
25 King St. W.,
Toronto, Ontario DeC. Cory, Peter,
44 King St. West,
Toronto, Ontario Honsberger, John D.,
Federal Building,
Toronto, Ontario Laidlaw, Douglas K.,
P.O. Box 48,
Toronto Dominion Centre,
Toronto, Ontario Mogan, Murray A.,
21 King St. East,
Toronto, Ontario
20,000.00
7,192.50
1,684.82
4,334.35
5,265.79


[Stage Direction]
June 13, 1973
[Stage Direction]
1972
Rogers, Ian E. H.,
250 University Ave.,
Toronto, Ontario	300.00
Williston, Walter B.,
P.O. Box 30,
Toronto Dominion Centre,
Toronto, Ontario	39,457.34
Mr. Stevens: What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the region of York, in the Province of Ontario, who performed services for the Department of Justice during each of the years 1971 and 1972 and what was the total amount of money paid to each one?


Otto Emil Lang: The following lawyers and law firms in the region of York, Ontario, acted as agents of the Attorney General of Canada on behalf of client departments:
Linton, Ross B.,
195 Main St.,
Newmarket, Ontario Stiver, Vale, Peppiot & Errington,
195 Main Street,
Newmarket, Ontario
Linton, Ross B.,
195 Main Street,
Newmarket, Ontario	132.00


Mr. Mather: What percentage of the national debt is war-created?


John Napier Turner: The net public debt is the excess of gross liabilities over net recorded assets. So defined, it is also a measure of the cumulative excess of budgetary disbursements for all purposes over budgetary receipts. It is thus not possible to apportion the cumulative deficit to particular expenditure categories. During the years of the First and Second World Wars, the net debt rose by $12.3 billion. Most of this increase was in fact attributable to the war effort.


Mr. Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay): 1.	What is the total amount of unpaid loans under the Canada Student Loans Act in each province?
2.	How many students are behind with their minimum payments?


John Napier Turner: 1. As of June 30, 1972, the total amount of loans outstanding was as follows:
Order Paper Questions
($000)
Class A (Government paying interest) $210,880 Class B (Student liable for interest
and repayment)	124,342
Total	$335,222
The provincial locations of the original lenders bear no relationship to the ultimate locations of the borrowers, and no distribution of outstanding loans by provinces is maintained.
2. The legislation permits a lender to revise repayment terms at any time where a borrower has defaulted or is about to default on a payment without notification to the government. It is not possible, therefore, to state how many students are behind with their payments. Where a revision of terms cannot be arranged or the borrower continues to default the lender will submit a claim for loss. As of June 30, 1972, some 12,000 students' loans had been submitted as claims by the lenders.


Mr. Cossitt: Is the govenrment giving consideration to making disability payments to individuals under the Canada Pension Plan paid prior to age 65 exempt from income tax and (a) if so, on what date can a decision be expected (b) if not, will the government give such consideration?


John Napier Turner: This is a matter of government policy. If it should be decided to propose amendments affecting the taxation of benefits payable under the Canada Pension Plan these would be announced at the appropriate time.


Mb*. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Commissioner of Official Languages make a special report to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development dated January 25, 1973 on the subject of institution of bilingualism by the Canals Division of the National and Historic Parks Branch?
2.	Did this report contain a total of 31 recommendations in regard to the implementation of bilingualism for the canal systems under the jurisdiction of the Department including the Rideau Canal and the Trent Canal?
3.	Have any recommendations in the report been carried out by the Department in connection with the Rideau Canal and in connection with the Trent Canal and, if so, what are they?
4.	Does the Department intend to carry out any recommendations in the report in connection with the Rideau Canal and in connection with the Trent Canal and, if so, what are they?
5.	Are there any recommendations in the report that the Department does not intend to carry out in regard to the Rideau Canal and in regard to the Trent Canal and, if so, what are they?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Yes.
2. This report contains 31 recommendations concerning the implementation of service in the two official lan-


[Stage Direction]
June 13, 1973
Order Paper Questions
guages to the travelling public visiting the canals systems under the jurisdiction of this department.
3.	All the recommendations in the report are being carried out in a progressive manner throughout the canals system as a whole.
4.	See answer to part 3.
5.	See answer to part 3.
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): Has the Department of National Defence subsidized 100 per cent of the Shipoka dam, built by Alcan in Lac St-Jean?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: No, the Department of National Defence did not subsidize the Shipoka dam built by Alcan in Lac St-Jean.


Mr. Knight: Is the government presently employing the Financial Collection Agencies Ltd. for the purpose of recovering student loans which are in arrears and, if so (a) what is the total amount of federal student loans in arrears (b) what is the amount presently collected by the Agency (c) what are the fees charged by the Agency for collecting such arrears?


John Napier Turner: No. The government employs Financial Collection Agencies Limited on the collection of certain loans on which lenders under the Canada Student Loans program have made claims in accordance with the guarantee provisions of the Act. (a) Since under the program the government does not lend money to students it has no means of knowing what loans are in arrears, however, up to 30 April, 1973 lenders have made 14,500 claims on account of defaulted loans totalling $24,432,740; (b) Of these, 13,429 (totalling $16,077,072) have been referred to F.C.A. for collection to that date on account of which $2,488,194 has so far been collected; (c) Financial Collection Agencies fees are 20 per cent of the amount collected. This is the amount of fee allowed to lenders under the Regulations to the Act for collecting on defaulted loans.


Mr. McKinnon: What was the (a) military strength (b) civilian strength of the Department of National Defence and Armed Forces on March 31 each year of the past ten years?
Richardson (Minister of
Hon. Jaimes Defence):
March 31,
1964
1966
(Mr. Chretien.]
(a)
Military Paid Strength 123,694 120,781 114,164 107,467
National
(b)
Continuing Full time Employees 43,327 41,632 38,919 38,106
March 31,	(a) Military Paid Strength	(b) Continuing Full time Employees1967	105,584	37,1001968	101,572	35,5761969	97,726	35,3611970	93,029	34,5211971	89,239	33,3551972	84,933	32,8591973	82,253	32,417
*
* *



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72 by the Department of Finance on contracts to outside persons and organizations for research, development and other consulting services?
2.	What are the names and addresses of these outside persons and organizations and what amounts of money were involved in each contract?
3.	What was the purpose of each contract and title of each report submitted?
4.	What are the names and addresses of outside persons and organizations who were awarded contracts for research, development and other consulting services in the current fiscal year, what are the amounts of money involved in each case and what is the purpose of each contract?
Return tabled.



POSITIONS UNDER JURISDICTION OF GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL

Mr. Fortin: 1.	Which appointments are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Governor in Council?
2.	What is the salary for each of these positions?
3.	At the present time, who holds each position and since what date?
4.	What is the background of each appointee and what is the age of each?
Return tabled.



POSITIONS NOMINATED BY CABINET

Mr. Fortin: 1.	For which positions or duties are the incumbents nominated by the Cabinet?
2.	In the case of each deputy minister, associate deputy minister and assistant deputy minister (a) what is his age (b) his professional training (c) his experience (d) his ethnic origin (e) his degree of proficiency in each official language (f) his salary?
Return tabled.
June 13, 1973



LOANS GRANTED BY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK

Mr. Frank: 1.	How many and what was the total value of loans given during 1971-72 and 1972-73 by the Industrial Development Bank under the loan categories (a) under $25,000 (b) $25,000-$49,999 (c) $50,000-$99,999 (d) $100,000-$499,999 (e) $500,000-$999,999 (f) over $1 million?
2.	What were the numbers and values of bad debts occurring in these categories for 1971-72 and 1972-73?
3.	For each province during 1971-72 and 1972-73, how many loans and their value were granted to firms engaged in (a) wholesale trade (b) retail trade (c) manufacturing (d) transportation and communications (e) mining (f) construction (g) agriculture (h) fishing (i) forestry (j) service industries (k) tourism?
4.	In each province during 1971-72 and 1972-73, what was the number and amount of loans given to firms operating in metropolitan regions (population over 100,000) as compared to the remainder of the province?
5.	In each province, for the same fiscal years, how many new offices were opened by the IDB and what were the locations of these new offices?
Return tabled.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26

[Stage Direction]
[ Transla tion]

Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 26, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin):
That the House adjourn immediately in view of the need and the urgency to stabilize the price of Canadian gas and oil, in order to study and take the necessary means to prevent an increase in the price of these products, and to find ways to encourage the new developments required in this sector, particularly with regard to transportation and exploitation of oil products.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe) gave notice of his intention to move for adjournment of the House, under Standing Order 26, in order to have a debate on the matter he has just mentioned.
May I be allowed to remind the House that the matter the hon. member wants to put before the House has already been the subject of discussions in the last few weeks. Several questions have been put, over the days, either before the order of the day or by way of questions on the order paper of the House. The problem has therefore existed for some time. The Chair cannot ignore the fact that recently, namely on May 28, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) moved an opposition motion, under the terms of Standing Order 58, on the recent increase in the cost of crude oil, gas and other oil products.
At the same time, the annual report of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources was deferred to the responsible committee; the minister appeared before the committee to discuss the production and distribution of oil products. I allude to previous discussions, not that I claim that the matter has been discussed exhaustively and that it need not be the subject of other debates, but because at
Motions for Papers
this point it must be determined whether the problem entails the element of pressing and urgent necessity, due to recent events, which is normally required to justify a debate under Standing Order 26. In view of the circumstances to which I have alluded, I must conclude that the motion of the hon. member is out of order.


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I did not hear Your Honour call Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers nor did I hear anyone ask that the remainder be adjourned. I wish to draw the attention of the parliamentary secretary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have not reached that item yet. The point of order suggested by the hon. member cannot hold. If he will allow the Chair to reach this item, it will be called.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member for Compton put me off.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 224 is acceptable to the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that notice of motion No. 224 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGES IN QUEBEC-COPIES OF FRENCH AND ENGLISH EXAMINATION PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 224-Mr. McKenzie:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all final examination papers in all subjects written in both French and
English by students at Royal Military Colleges in Quebec.
Motion agreed to.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the other notices of motions stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motion stand?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to draw to the attention of the parliamentary secretary that question No. 1849 was placed on the order paper on April 3, well over two months ago. While I realize there may be some difficulty in answering all 29 parts of that question, surely some of them could have been and should have been answered by now.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, we have answers to about three-quarters of the question. Unfortunately the hon. member put his question in 29 parts. It is not possible for us to

Oral Questions
make available to the House the answers to some of the parts without making them all available at the same time.


Erik Nielsen: I would draw to the attention of the parliamentary secretary that in the form in which they were placed with the officers of the Table they were 29 separate questions.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I would like to draw the attention of the parliamentary secretary to a question of mine on the order paper, No. 77, which has been on the order paper since January 19, 1973. I realize that the information may be embarrassing to the government, to the former minister of finance and to the present Minister of Finance, but that should be no reason for withholding the information.


Mr. Reynolds:: Mr. Speaker, I have the same type of point of order regarding question No. 230 concerning Air Canada and its arrangements with insurance companies. It appeared on the order paper on January 10, was, also on the order paper in the previous parliament under the name of my predecessor and still has not been answered. I would also refer to question No. 2075 concerning a PAIT grant to Collins Radio Canada and Triton Industries Limited. This is another one which I wish the government would answer quickly. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could advise us when these questions will be answered.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to assure hon. members that 82 per cent of all the questions that have been put on the order paper have been answered, which is a record.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister in the light of the national housing crisis again aggravated by the high interest rates. In view of the fact urban housing starts dropped off again last month, is the government going to take steps directly with the Bank of Canada and the chartered banks to isolate the housing sector from the high interest rate policy of the government and, if so, when?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity of looking at the statistics the hon. member has given. If he will permit, I will take notice of the question and check into them.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The Prime Minister says he has not looked at the statistics. It is known across the land that there is a national housing crisis. May I put this question to him. In view of his answer that he will take the

question in reference to declining housing starts as notice, is he satisfied with the policy whereby less than 4 per cent of the wage earners of Canada can now afford to buy new homes?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What I meant in my previous answer was that I had not seen the issue of Statistics Canada on housing for the most recent month. However, the hon. member will realize that just a couple of days ago I indicated that housing starts in the last month were beating all-time records, and I am told that even recent statistics show that housing starts are above those of last year. So there is progress. I hope the hon. member will realize that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Only the Prime Minister seems to be satisfied. I trust he will answer my next question. Is he satisfied with the policy of his government whereby only 4 per cent or less of the wage earners of Canada can now afford to buy new homes, particularly because of the high interest rates and the bank rate which are continually going up?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Satisfaction, of course, is a relative matter. I am not satisfied that everyone in Canada gets the kind of housing that he would like. I am merely indicating to the hon. member that whereas the goal set by the Economic Council of Canada, to which this government subscribed was one million housing starts over a period of five years, making an average of 200,000 a year, we have been bettering this number of housing starts for several years now. Housing starts for last year were in the vicinity of 274,000 compared with the goal of 200,000. So there is a very substantial improvement which compares favourably with the record of any other country in this area.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In light of the fact that the Minister of Finance has just come in and the Prime Minister took notice of my first question, perhaps the Minister of Finance could answer it. May I put the question again?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member can perhaps ask the question, but we have to make some headway. The hon. member may repeat his question and then I will recognize the hon. member for York South.
e (1420)


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I put this question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that urban housing starts dropped off last month, is the minister going to take steps directly with the Bank of Canada and the chartered banks to isolate the housing sector from the high interest rate policy of the government and, if so, when?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, there is no evidence at the moment that there is any shortage of funds available for the housing market. Indeed, the banks, trust companies and life insurance companies are devoting a great proportion of their total assets, their liquid available assets, to the housing market.
June 13, 1973


MANPOWER
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Can he inform the House as to the criteria that are being used for the purpose of extending local initiatives program projects and, particularly, whether one of the criteria used is the size of the group concerned in a project, so that some projects are extended one month and some two months depending on the size of the group?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, there are many factors taken into consideration. Certainly the number of people employed by the project is a factor that has heavier weight than the service they are providing, although we also consider that. I would confirm that where there are not very many employees related directly to the project and the service, while important, is judged to be of less importance than others, we make decisions in approving or rejecting projects facing the fact that there is a limit to the funds available.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, do I understand the minister to say that the nature of the service is taken into account, or do I understand him to say that the number of people involved is the only factor which influences the government? Further, is the minister aware of a number of projects which are performing extremely useful services for aged and handicapped people that were granted an extension of only one month on the basis that they had only three, four or five people employed in providing the service? Is that the case, and is the minister ready to look into it and change his criteria?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I would be able to promise the hon. member that we could change the criteria. We are examining these factors as and when they are brought to our attention. I would refer the hon. member to my announcements in the House when I indicated that there would be extensions, both in April and subsequently in May. We did say with regard to the first extension that it was most definitely related to unemployment in CMC areas, and that in the second extension consideration was given to projects on their merits in relation to services provided in areas where unemployment was less than the national average. We give weight to the kind of services provided, but generally speaking the question of employment or unemployment is a factor that has greater weight than the services that are being provided.


David Lewis: Would the minister explain to the House how in heaven's name the number of unemployed involved three or four or five instead of nine or ten or twelve- should govern the decision of his department if the service rendered is a socially useful service? Would he please explain how that can be?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I am not saying it is the dominant, the only factor. I am simply saying we have to take several factors into account, recognizing that we have put more money into LIP this year than in any previous
Oral Questions
year. In fact, the funds authorized for extensions past May 31 were considerably greater in size than the moneys made available last year. But even in spite of this we have to make some tough decisions on the eligibility of different projects since we cannot possibly fund them all.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary related to the question put by the hon. member for Calgary North, but the first question, in the first round, will be asked by the hon. member for Champlain.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Champlain has the floor.


FINANCE
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, further to the question put to the right hon. Prime Minister last Monday of which he took notice on behalf of the hon. Minister of Finance, I will now direct a question to the hon. Minister of Finance.
Because of certain privileges which the chartered banks grant themselves and which are at variance with section 93 of the Bank Act (c.B-1, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970), and also with reference to section 87 of the Auditor General's latest report, does the Minister of Finance expect to require the chartered banks to cease using interest-free government reserves, and consider this problem with a view to better regulating this area of activity?


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Yes
or no.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member could state his question more precisely, I would be able to answer him.


René Matte: I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
I purposely took the precaution of stating my question clearly, and I would like to ask the minister whether he is aware of section 87 of the Auditor General's report dealing with this matter?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Yes or no.


An hon. Member:: That is not the real Minister of Finance.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am going to take notice of this question, so that the hon. member can have the answer he deserves.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham on a supplementary.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: No, Sir, my question is not a
supplementary.

June 13, 1973
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: I was under the impression that the hon. member had a supplementary to the first question. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona on a supplementary.


MANPOWER
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for York South and is to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Because the Canadian Council on Social Development has recommended to th'e government that work opportunity programs such as LIP and OFY be put on a permanent basis, will the minister assure the House that before the government makes any such decision he will inform the House of the total cost of work opportunity programs on a permanent basis and will ask for the approval of parliament before a decision is made?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, this whole area is under intense examination, not the least indication of which was given by my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, when he set before the House proposals for consideration in general terms concerning a community employment program and employment strategy in the income security paper. We are far from having made an official decision on that matter and when we have we will communicate it to hon. members in the appropriate manner.


Erik Nielsen: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister assure the House that the practice followed by the government heretofore of referring applications and applications for extension of LIP grants to defeated Liberal candidates and sitting Liberal members of parliament has been discontinued?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, that practice was never followed. We are very conscious of the recommendations of hon. members on all sides of the House. We have done our best to give consideration to such recommendations, which I might say have come from all sides of the House in great volume.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister which has to do with the population explosion and the shortage of food, indeed, the famine in various parts of the world. Is the government giving consideration to bringing before the United Nations at the initiation of Canada the establishment of a world food bank? I ask that

on the basis of previous experience in Canada when in December, 1957, as Prime Minister I endeavoured to bring it about within NATO and later in 1959 and 1960 $10 million was made available for some 20,000 tons of wheat flour, although Norway entered into it. This is a matter that affects people all over the world-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the Prime Minister might be allowed to reply to the question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, since the suggestion of the right hon. gentleman is one that he pressed in the past himself, I am sure it is still alive in the Department of External Affairs and it is probably being looked into. However, I shall inquire. Of course, the hon. gentleman knows that, without the existence of the kind of food bank he is talking about, either through FAO or the Canadian International Development Agency we are assisting and frequently assist countries suffering from a shortage of food. We also assist in cases of emergency or crisis of the type that happens after famines or large natural disasters.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask whether some initiative will be taken by Canada to meet the universal demand today in FAO and other organizations that something like this be done at once in view of the perilous situation of so many people all over the world as far as hunger is concerned?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had answered that by saying I would inquire to see whether such an initiative is being prepared in the Department of External Affairs. I hope, if it is, that they will ascertain the reasons why the initiatives of the right hon. gentleman, when he was leader of the government, were not accepted by other countries, and perhaps we can learn to improve the way in which we present them in order to make them acceptable.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the minister responsible for manpower. I would ask him whether he has had an opportunity to review his records in order to ascertain whether there was in fact a regulation which, in effect, prevented UIC employees from giving information to claimants with respect to their rights and responsibilities regarding claims. I would ask the minister whether he has ascertained this, whether he knew about it and whether he approved, particularly when he has indicated that there were claims assistance programs going on and that some $14 million was put into the new decentralization program to help people person to person-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: -which would seem to have been a fraud and a farce.
June 13, 1973


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might allow the minister to reply to the first part of the question.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I have been tracking this down. The publication did not have the status of a regulation. The publication was first issued early in 1969 and was routinely reissued in March, 1972. That is 1972, not 1973. It has been superseded by instructions related to the new approach involving the reorganization and decentralization of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and, in that sense, withdrawn. I would say, in retrospect, that although the full context of the communication indicates that the purpose was to establish the claimants' responsibility basically to know the law, the language of the particular paragraph quoted as being issued one year ago but initiated in 1969 was taken out of context and does not reflect current thinking. I thank the hon. member for bringing this to my attention because it has given me the opportunity of clarifying the situation.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I wonder if the minister can advise the House and the people of Canada when his department is going to stop practising deceit and act honestly with respect to claimants, particularly in view of the fact that this directive, which was formerly called a regulation, was outstanding when he was offering to help claimants on a person to person basis-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: When is the department going to stop practising deceit?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to indicate to the hon. member, as I am sure he realizes, that a question asked in those terms in not in order. I think the Chair is entitled to the co-operation of hon. members when calling order and they should not look the other way and ignore the Chair.


Robert Knight Andras: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw the attention of the House to the desirability of being fair to the commission, which is mounting an intense effort to improve its operation and administration, I think with some considerable success. I would also draw to the attention of the House the rather strange coincidence that, in both references to this particular matter, the date referred to in the motion made by the hon. member for Hamilton West and in the subsequent question put to the House was March 1, but for some peculiar reason there was no reference to the year in which this communication was dispatched.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: That makes it even worse. Where is Mackasey?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I would point out to the minister that it does not matter in what year that regulation or directive went out.
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The fact remains that the minister has been going around the country pretending that the government is willing to help claimants while, at the same time, there has been a directive that says, on the other hand, that no help shall be forthcoming from the Unemployment Insurance Commission to claimants.


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


COMBINES
Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I would ask him if it comes within his responsibilities to investigate collusion by corporations in the setting of prices for their products, and if, as I suspect, the answer is yes, would the minister consider looking into the matter of alleged price fixing of cement, effective May 1, 1973, by three corporations?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to have the Combines Branch do that, and I would appreciate it if the hon. member could give me further details of the matter he has raised in his question.


Douglas Charles Rowland: In that case, may I ask the minister if he would look into the price of cement, which was fixed at $28.72 a ton by Independent Cement Corporation from Joliette, la Compagnie des Ciments du St. Laurent, whose president sits on the advisory council to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and Canada Cement Lafarge, whose deputy chairman is Hon. Jimmy Sinclair? I have the evidence here and I would be pleased to send it to the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hees:: Pierre, blood is thicker than water; you cannot get away with that Pierre.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the officials of the Combines Branch to look into the hon. member's representation, without accepting the premise or innuendo in his question.

[ Trans la tion]


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Justice.
Is he aware of the confusion caused in court by the omnibus bill now in effect concerning the abortions per-

June 13, 1973
Oral Questions
formed by Dr. Morgentaler and did his Quebec counterpart communicate with him in that connection?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice of the province of Quebec and I have not discussed this particular case. Aspects of it are before the courts, and therefore any further comment at this time would not be appropriate.


REQUEST BY NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE FOR ADDITIONAL RESEARCH FUNDS
Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare and arises out of the recent financial crisis of the National Cancer Institute. Can the minister advise the House whether he has received a request from the director of the National Cancer Institute that more money be directed into cancer research?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to consider the matter. I think that I received representations to that effect some time ago, but I will inquire to see if more recent steps were taken.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that a federally sponsored study by the National Black Coalition of Canada Research Institute has established among other things that coloured people are often the victims of grave injustice in Montreal, will the Prime Minister look into this report and issue, at the federal level, the necessary instructions.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the hon. member would be more explicit as to his question, Mr. Speaker, I should be pleased either to find out where the funds originated or examine the report itself.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I shall be pleased to send the Prime Minister the documents which gave rise to my question. I should like now to direct to him a supplementary question.
Will the government support financially a new study by the same group, this time in the private sector?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, these are probably federal funds which are coming from the Department of the Secretary of State and which allow certain groups throughout Canada to research into their own particular problems; should new applications be made by this group,

I am sure they will be dealt with by the minister with the same open-mindedness as in the past.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. As rail freight rates have recently been increased as much as 70 per cent on goods being shipped to the west, will the minister forestall any further rate increases and table a list of the items on which the rates have been increased and the reason why? I feel that an immediate review should be conducted of the freight rate structure for all of Canada.
[ Translation]


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, when one talks about the increase in freight rates, I think certain distinctions should be made. There are rates agreed to by railway companies and users. Those agreements are made on a voluntary basis. Now, rates have indeed been raised but with the agreement of both parties.
As to the general increase in freight rates, I have stated in the House that I hoped there would be none and I still express the same wish. On the other hand, I hope to have an early opportunity to meet with the western premiers, as it had been agreed to on June 7, to discuss the matter submitted to the House.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, the people I am speaking about did not agree to this increase at all. They just found out about it when goods were delivered to them. There was no consultation whatsoever.

# (1440)


CONSUMER PACKAGING AND LABELLING ACT
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister relating to the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act. In view of the fact draft regulations were distributed to the industry last year but not to members of the House, of course, can the Prime Minister advise when the regulations will be promulgated and the act proclaimed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will refer this question to the minister responsible for these regulations, presumably the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
June 13, 1973


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I will direct the question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In light of the fact that on March 27 last the minister undertook in the House to have the regulations promulgated within one month, can he tell us what the reason is for the delay?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if I gave that undertaking in the House. The latest information available to me is that these regulations will be available for publication and comment during the month of August.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. In view of the serious deterioration in relations between Canadian National Railways, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Division 907 of Vancouver, which has broken from the international union, will the minister assure the House he will immediately contact all parties in order to resolve these difficulties and ensure fair treatment for the men of Division 907?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that officials of my department have been in touch with the parties in an endeavour to be helpful.
Mb-. Fraser: In view of the fact that appeals taken by 67 of the men in the Vancouver division under the union constitution must be heard by CNR officials and in view of the fact that the CNR has attempted to hold these appeals by merely placing telephone calls to the appellants, thus denying these men a fair hearing, can the minister assure the House that he will immediately intervene to correct this blatant injustice?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, before making an assessment of all the particulars to which the hon. member referred, I would advise the hon. member that I will certainly look into what he has said in the House today and get back to him.


REQUEST FOR ACTION TO PREVENT RETURN TO PRACTICE OF SIGNING UNDER AGE HOCKEY PLAYERS TO PROFESSIONAL CONTRACTS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the news today of the signing of Dennis Sobchuk, a junior hockey player, by the World Hockey Association, in view of the fact he is under the age limit agreed to by the NHL and CAHA, and in view of last week's week signing of the Howe brothers to a contract with the World Hockey Association, is it the government's intention to do anything to prevent the
Oral Questions
imminent return to the pre-agreement practice of signing under age hockey players to professional contracts?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure the House there is no intention of allowing the situation to deteriorate to the point of returning to the previous situation. We have people following the current meeting of the National Hockey League in Montreal. We will have reports on that meeting within the next couple of days. I hope we will then be in a position to advise as to what steps need to be taken. I will be pleased to inform the House as to what steps will be taken.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Last week you indicated to the House you would be meeting-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member address his question to the Chair.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. The minister indicated to the House he would be meeting with the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association to discuss this problem. Will he now advise the House whether such a meeting was held and the results of that meeting?


Marc Lalonde: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the meeting has not yet been held. However, the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association has been very involved in discussions at the National Hockey League convention in Montreal. They have not yet been available for a meeting, but I will be available at any time convenient to them. I hope to have that meeting very early next week.


ELECTION EXPENSES
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. Since the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party, representing a majority of members in this House, have stressed the urgency of legislation dealing with election expenses and since such legislation was not listed as a priority by the government House leader in his statements in recent days, will the Prime Minister consider bringing forward immediately the bill in my name as a government order so that the House can have the opportunity to deal with the important matter of regulating election expenses?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that when the House leader was talking of priorities the other day he was talking about items he felt the House would have to deal with finally before rising for the summer break. In the case of election expenses, I have indicated repeatedly that we will bring a bill forward this session. We did bring one in last session and a bill will be brought forward this year. I must say with some deference that, knowing the two bills, I think ours will be brought forward because that of

June 13, 1973
Oral Questions
the hon. member is quite deficient in many aspects. But she will have an occasion to form her own opinion because we will be giving our bill first reading in a few days.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary to the government House leader. Can the government House leader arrange for more leisure time for members of the Conservative party in order that they may attend the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections to deal with this matter, something they have been boycotting?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Dart-mouth-Halifax East.


Mr. Forrestall:: Mr. Speaker, I feel I have to rise on a question of privilege. These remarks are not called for and they are untrue. There is a great temptation to ask the hon. member to withdraw. This is another of his typical smart-ass remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member was recognized for the purpose of asking a question. At least that is what I gathered.


TRANSPORT
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of asking a supplementary question to that of my leader.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Where is your leader?


J. Michael Forrestall: My question is supplementary to one I know the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings wanted to ask. While I am on my feet I cannot resist the temptation to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. It arises out of the answer given yesterday by the minister with regard to the activities of the motor vessel Travetal. Can the minister advise whether during the next two months the Travetal will operate with Canadian officers and a Canadian crew?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think permission has been given to the Travetal to travel between Halifax and St. John's with German officers, a Spanish crew, a Commonwealth officer and a Commonwealth crew. This means there will be two crews.


J. Michael Forrestall: In order to encourage a Canadian merchant marine, I wish to ask whether the temporary granting of the extension will come to an end or is it in any way consequent upon the company that owns the vessel providing Canadian officers and a Canadian crew within the period of the extension?


Jean Marchand: After two months the ship's officers will be Commonwealth officers and the crew will

be a Commonwealth crew, unless the Darling report is applied.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Since unemployment insurance officials have by their own admission erred in paying benefits to recipients who were later retroactively disqualified and since these recipients are now being forced to repay not only the overpayment but the income tax which they paid on these benefits, will the minister investigate this rather strange and questionable procedure?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, questions on the matter of income tax related to unemployment insurance benefits should more properly be addressed to my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, whose department has jurisdiction over this.


William David Knowles: Then may I direct my question to the Minister of National Revenue. Why are income tax deductions not refunded directly to the Unemployment Insurance Commission rather than asking the recipient to repay them?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to look into that for the hon. member but I think that a reassessment would have to be made for the individual and a refund made to the individual.

[ Translation]


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the hon. Minister of Agriculture.
Since some eastern farmers are worried by the news that the United States have apparently asked the Canadian government to eliminate subsidies for feed grain transportation, can the hon. minister tell the House if indeed the Canadian government has received such a request from the American government? If so, what has been or what will be the answer of the hon. minister?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of such a request, but this Minister of Agriculture is not bound by anything that any other country tells him should be done.
June 13, 1973


FEED GRAIN-REQUEST FOR SURVEY AMONGST EASTERN CANADA FARMERS
André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, in relation to the feed grains problem, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board.
I would like to ask him whether he intends to carry out a survey of eastern Canada farmers about feed grains prices as he did on March 30, 1973 among western producers about their satisfaction with the two price policy?


Mr. Speaker:: While the matter is being considered, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Hamilton-Went-worth.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Would the minister advise the House of the reason for the recent instructions by maritime command headquarters that Canadian sailors must shave off any beards they may have and may not grow them? Obviously I have no direct interest in this matter, Mr. Speaker, but I am very concerned about the detrimental effect this policy is having upon the morale of the troops. Would the minister advise whether he is reconsidering this policy?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the allegation is not correct. There have been no instructions to shave off beards. Those who have beards may continue to wear them, but there are instructions that permission will not be given for those who do not now have beards to grow them.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I do not have a hairy story but I did have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. I am not sure where the minister is at the moment; he may be behind the curtains. Since he is missing I will direct the question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board.
In view of the fact the Department of Agriculture has suggested through the minister that a federal program is available to assist in the fight against grasshoppers in southern Saskatchewan where farmers have lost up to one-third of their crops, one in particular, would the minister inform the House whether there is any over-all pro-
Oral Questions
gram of assistance to producers in regard to general spraying of grasshoppers in this part of Saskatchewan?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the main responsibility for trying to assure that local action to meet such a threat is taken rests with the provincial government. The federal Department of Agriculture has taken a very active role, however, along its traditional lines of doing research and preparing the necessary chemicals, such as the diemethoate, so that the fight can be effective.


William George Knight: In view of the fact the Minister of Agriculture is attempting to take some credit for a situation that does not exist, and since there is a severe outbreak of grasshoppers in this area, would the minister inform the House what is the federal program for grasshopper control referred to by his colleague who is in charge of helping to grow all the wheat that the minister sells on world markets?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will direct that question by way of notice to the Minister of Agriculture.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Because of the obvious difficulty in servicing unemployment insurance claims, especially in small towns and rural areas across Canada, would the minister consider, in areas where he does not intend to open a UIC office, permanently assigning a UIC officer to each manpower office so that this very serious situation can be corrected immediately?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I have considerable sympathy with the intent of the hon. member's comment. There have been some 100 unemployment insurance commission officers placed in manpower offices to date under the reorganization that is under way, and we are exploring the advisability of extending this as far as is economically and practically possible.


William Heward Grafftey: In those areas, such as mine, where offices have not been opened and there are over 200 people on welfare pending the disposition of unemployment insurance claims, would the minister assign officers from the UIC to manpower offices so that this very serious situation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Obviously this is a representation made directly to the minister by the hon. member.
4720__________ COMMONS DEBATES	June 13, 1973
Oral Questions TRADE


REQUEST FOR RELEASE FROM BOND OF TRUCKS ORDERED BY ONTARIO MUNICIPALITIES
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and it deals with heavy duty trucks of a type not manufactured in Canada being imported from the United States. Several municipalities in Ontario have ordered such vehicles but cannot receive delivery of same because they are being held in bond in Canada due to Canada's unfavourable balance of trade under the auto pact. Will the minister try to arrange for the release of these much needed vehicles?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to look into the situation and report back to the hon. member.

[ Translation]


INQUIRY RESPECTING CERTAIN MOTOR VEHICLES HELD AT CHARNY-REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary to the hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Considering that about a hundred trucks and delivery vans have been kept for almost three months in a yard in Charny, Quebec, can the minister tell the House whether he is aware of that problem and, if so, can he tell the House what are the reasons justifying that measure?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to look into the question the hon. member raises if he would give me further information. Without wishing to speculate on this particular answer, I think it is obvious that the automobile companies have had a very good year saleswise and they may be having difficulty in maintaining their ratios from the point of view of production.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the announcement in Vancouver this week by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs of the transfer to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for public use of the government owned Granville Island in the city of Vancouver, would the minister give his assurance that he will give immediate consideration to the transfer to the city of Vancouver for public use of the 38 acre development area of Jericho defence lands in Vancouver?
 /


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I am certain the hon. member knows that negotiations are continuing between the city and the Department of National Defence.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope hon. members will appreciate that we have reached the end of the question period. Before calling orders of the day I will recognize the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys following the supplementary question of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.


TRANSFER OF GRANVILLE ISLAND, VANCOUVER, TO CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION-PROPOSED USE
William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my supplementary to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Would the minister advise the House what use Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation plans to make of Granville Island, which is an industrial estate?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member probably knows, we received a consultants' report last October. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will not be renewing any more leases on the island but will be using the land in the way generally outlined in the consultants' report for the greater benefit of the city of Vancouver.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. May I ask the hon. gentleman whether he is in a position today to report progress or otherwise with reference to the strike of hotel workers at the Canadian National Nova Scotian Hotel in Halifax?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, may I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. I appointed a mediator on June 1 and he has met with the parties on several occasions. I understand that the issues have been narrowed and I am hopeful that a settlement will be arrived at fairly soon.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the increase in unemployment in the Atlantic region, and in view of continued problems with transport costs and rising interest rates, all counterproductive of the efforts of the minis-
June 13, 1973

ter and his department to alleviate regional disparity, will he make an announcement soon in regard to new DREE policies and initiatives? In other words, can he indicate at what point the consultative process will be supplemented with new and direct actions and initiatives by DREE?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the working parties to which I referred the other day, which are working now with all four governments in the Atlantic provinces, will have initial reports which in some instances could be ready by the end of the current month. It is not our intention to wait for the completion of the total consultative process, but as soon as specific opportunities are identified we are prepared, as I believe the provinces are, to proceed with those. So I would hope for action this summer.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Kenneth J. Higson (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, I wished to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, but in view of the fact he has left I will direct it to the Minister of Finance. In view of the announcement by the government of the province of Ontario on Monday last with regard to the protection and preservation of land in the Niagara peninsula for agricultural purposes, specifically the production of fruit, can the minister say whether this government is prepared to take reciprocal steps to preserve and protect the Niagara fruit industry either by setting import quotas on the quantity of fresh and processed fruit entering Canada from foreign suppliers or by reinstituting protective tariffs on imported fruit, or both?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, as I have said earlier, the Minister of Agriculture and myself maintain a constant review of these measures. If there were any legitimate action to be taken because of loss of production, loss of employment or adverse competitive situations, we would of course act and an announcement would be made in the normal course.


Kenneth James Higson: Is the minister not aware that for those engaged in the production or processing of fruit in the Niagara area, to make this industry economically viable they must take long-range decisions which involve consideration of the stability of the domestic market in the reasonably foreseeable future; they cannot wait until their position is damaged before the government imposes a protective tariff.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please.
Oral Questions FISHERIES


SALMON FISHING BAN IN ATLANTIC PROVINCES- SETTLEMENT OF FISHERMEN'S CLAIMS
Mr. Tom Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries on the matter of compensation for salmon fishermen. As reported at page 4052 of Hansard for May 14, the day of the minister's ill-fated trip to New Brunswick, I asked him about the claims of salmon fishermen and what progress was being made. He said that all but 12 claims had been settled. The other day the special investigator said at least 119 claims had not been dealt with at all. Can the minister explain this error of 909 per cent, and will he tell us how the whole matter now rests?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, the special investigator not only went to discuss this problem with those who had not received compensation but with others who still believe that the compensation is not enough.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


TRANSPORT
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On June 5, in reply to a question posed by the hon. member for Hastings arising out of the tabling of the annual reports of Air Canada and the CNR, the Minister of Transport indicated that these reports were automatically referred to the committee. I am now informed this is not the case. I wonder whether the Minister of Transport would now ask for unanimous consent of the House to have these reports referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications so the committee might be able to discuss this matter of public business.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this a very technical point and I should like to discuss it with my colleagues before I give an answer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Yesterday members on this side of the House challenged the reliability of a public document that was presented by the government showing the total of the consumer price indices as adding up to less than the sum of the components. The minister took the question as notice. We expected the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, on a question of privilege or in some

June 13, 1973
Oral Questions
other way, to rise in his place today and explain the discrepancy or error or unreliability in this document.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister, of course, can be recognized if he has the unanimous consent of the House. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am told the reason is a very simple one and well-known to those involved in statistical work: it involves a question of rounding.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


John Howard Lundrigan: A question of what?


Alastair William Gillespie: Rounding.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Howard Lundrigan: Explain.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please, We should try to make some progress.


John Howard Lundrigan: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I am not-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder whether the hon. member might not pursue the matter tomorrow during the question period. There is another member rising on a point of order. I will return to the hon. member if he wants to pursue the matter, but I now recognize the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour on a point of order.


CANADA GAMES
Mr. Ed Nelson (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, and to save time I would indicate that I speak also for the hon. member for New Westminster and the hon. member for Burnaby-Rich-mond-Delta. We deplore the lack of political sportsmanship displayed by the government in excluding hon. members who specifically represent the ridings of Burnaby and New Westminster, where the Canada games are to be held, from participating officially in the torch-lighting ceremony today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nels Edwin Nelson: We are proud, Mr. Speaker, to be among the representatives of the site of this great event, and would have appreciated the opportunity to indicate our support of the games by being included in this ceremony in the same way as we have been so courteously included in ceremonies in both Burnaby and New Westminster. We consider this obvious omission as a slight not only to us but to the people of our ridings.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, speaking on this question of privilege, I have no doubt that the hon. member is representing his riding very well. There were a lot of people at the opening ceremony today.


An hon. Member:: All Liberals.


Marc Lalonde: Everybody was welcome, including the hon. member. He only needed to show up and he would had been recognized.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Shameful.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Members are rising on a question of privilege in respect of which no notice has been given. Hon. members know there is a procedure to be followed which requires that hon. members give the Chair notice of such questions. I do not think that at the end of the question period, or at other times during the proceedings of the House, hon. members should rise and seek the floor to make statements on alleged or suggested questions of privilege without following the procedure prescribed by the rules. I will now call orders of the day.


John Howard Lundrigan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a brief question of the minister who is perhaps more knowledgeable in the working of the new math than members sitting on this side of the House. Perhaps he will take the first opportunity to explain how you can round .77 to .7 when, using their own figures, it adds up to .7. We are very seriously concerned about the reliability of statements coming from what appears to be a bureau well dominated by the government, especially from the Minister of Finance's point of view.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Douglas Reynolds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to delay the proceedings of the House, but the minister stated that anybody was welcome to attend this ceremony at the noon hour. I phoned his office this morning and said that members who represent these ridings would very much like to be invited to sit on the platform with ministers and other Liberal members from that area. His office informed me this was not possible because it was only for Liberal ministers from that area.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker-[DOT]


George Harris Hees: Typical Liberal arrogance.


Robert Muir: What can you expect?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had taken the trouble to come down the hill he would have seen, first
June 13, 1973

of all, that there was no platform, so there was no way one could be seated on a platform.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will have to call orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

John Napier Turner: that Bill C-192, to amend the Income Tax Act (No. 2), be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the basic objectives of the measures before the House for its consideration this afternoon are twofold: they are to protect the millions of jobs that today depend directly and indirectly on maintaining the international competitiveness of our vitally important manufacturing and processing industries, and to promote the development of many hundreds of thousands of new jobs for our rapidly growing labour force in the years that lie ahead.
In a recent Toronto address, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) suggested that when the full impact of the enlarged European Common Market and the United States DISC scheme became apparent, he was "certain we will need stronger and better measures", to use his words, than those being considered by the House today to assist Canadian manufacturers and processors. I hasten to acknowledge at the outset of my remarks that the Leader of the Opposition may very well be right. It follows, I believe, that whatever may need to be done in the future to meet changing world conditions, parliament should adopt the measures we are now proposing to help our manufacturing and processing industries to meet and match the increasingly intense competition they face from foreign companies both in our own home market and in markets abroad.
When I first proposed these measures to help strengthen the structure of Canada's vitally important manufacturing and processing industries, I described them as the first major step being taken by the government to develop a coherent set of new industrial policies. It was never intended that this should be the last such step.
In my budget speech of last February, I pointed out to the House that "no one can predict the outcome of the changes now under way in the world's trading and financial system or what their impact may be on Canada's trading position". It is entirely possible, therefore, that at some stage in the future it may become apparent that additional measures are required to further bolster this sector of our economy so as to offset the adverse impact of these changes under way on the international stage.
In the meantime, however, the measures now being considered by the House provide a concrete and positive means of helping to overcome the critical problems confronting Canada's manufacturing and processing industries over the medium and longer term. The legislation
Income Tax Act (No. 2)
before the House for second reading, Bill C-192, provides for the reduction effective at the beginning of 1973 of the top rate of corporate tax on manufacturing and processing profits to 40 per cent, and the reduction of the rate on manufacturing and processing profits of smaller, Canadian-owned enterprises to 20 per cent. A companion proposal, the fast two-year write-off of equipment and machinery acquired by manufacturers and processors between May 8, 1972, and December 31, 1974, is subject to implementation through changes in capital cost allowance regulations under authority provided by parliament.
On May 29 I tabled a draft of the proposed regulations, which form an integral part of the plan put forward by the government, so that the House would be in a position to consider and debate the whole program in a meaningful and comprehensive way. As soon as parliament has approved this bill, it is the government's intention to introduce these regulations by order in council.
[ Translation]
So as to place these measures in perspective, may I remind the House that they are an integral part of the fiscal policies set forth in the last two budgets, aimed at strengthening Canada's industrial sector, encouraging strong growth in the production and employment sectors, and alleviating international inflationary pressures on our economy. Some of these measures have already been implemented through the statutes enacted by parliament early in this session. After Bill C-192 has been passed, we propose to go on to study Bill C-193, which also provides amendments to the Income Tax Act and measures already submitted dealing with changes in customs duties and sales and excise taxes.
As I have pointed out more than once, our country's production and processing sector is the greatest source of employment in industry. It provides good, relatively stable and well-paid jobs for almost two million Canadians, or one out of every four workers. No less important is the fact that it leads to the creation of an equal number of jobs in the numerous service enterprises which depend on the manufacturing and processing sectors. Thus it follows that the jobs of four million Canadians, or of one out of every two workers, depend on the maintenance of strong and well-established enterprises in Canada's manufacturing and processing sector.

As I have also emphasized, however, the manufacturing and processing sector of our economy is more exposed and more vulnerable to the forces of change under way throughout the world than any other. Over the past few years it has been adversely affected by the appreciation of the Canadian dollar in relation to United States currency, a development that has been far from offset by the depreciation of the Canadian dollar in relation to the currencies of a number of other major industrial nations because of the very heavy proportion of Canada's trade with the United States.
The recent enlargement of the European Common Market has added to the competitive threat both at home and abroad that confronts Canadian manufacturers and processors from that quarter. On the Pacific side of the world, a further challenge is proposed by the emergence of Japan as one of the new industrial giants.

June 13, 1973
Income Tax Act (No. 2)
Yet another element of competition faces Canadian manufacturers and processors as a result of various forms of export subsidies provided to resident companies by a number of other countries, one of the most critical being the substantial tax subsidies for exports made available in the past year to U.S. corporations under the DISC plan. The DISC scheme presents a three-pronged threat to the Canadian economy. It could intensify the competition that Canadian manufacturers and processors face from United States exports to our own domestic market; it could intensify the competition that Canadian manufacturers and processors face from United States companies in markets abroad; and, most important of all, it could over time result in a significant proportion of new capital investment and the accompanying new employment opportunities being located in the United States rather than in our own country.
The magnitude of the threat posed by DISC has now become fully evident with the publication by the U.S. administration of draft regulations proposing the adoption of accounting procedures, such as marginal costing, which would substantially enlarge the extent of the export tax subsidy available to many American companies. If there ever was any doubt about the potentially adverse impact of the DISC scheme on the Canadian economy, it should have been dispelled by the recent study undertaken by the Canadian Income Tax Committee of the Tax Executive Institute. The study concluded that Canadian manufacturers and processors would be placed at what it described as "a considerable disadvantage" if the measures now before the House were not implemented.
The necessity of taking steps to help our manufacturing and processing industries become strong and resilient is further reinforced by a host of uncertainties about future development around the globe. The international monetary front, for example, continues to be unsettled despite the major readjustment that has taken place in world currencies to restore the underlying economic balance between nations. In no small measure, these tremors appear to reflect uncertainties relating to political developments south of the border that touch the intangible but fundamental element of confidence. These same political developments also cloud the outlook for the passage of legislation by Congress that looks toward the further liberalization of world trade at a new round of GATT negotiations scheduled to commence this fall, as opposed to a return to increased protectionism by the world's major trading centres.
It is perfectly true, as the Leader of the Opposition suggested in the same speech in Toronto to which I referred earlier, that none of us knows for sure what the full effect of all these developments will be on Canadian manufacturers and processors. I do not, however, accept his contention that the government has made no real effort to determine what the effect will be. We have, in fact, made a great deal of effort to assess what the impact might be. But it is obviously quite impossible to estimate with any mathematical precision what effect any or all of these various elements are having now or may have in future on the growth of employment, production and capital investment in this country.


Mr. Stevens:: Tell us generally.


John Napier Turner: We do know, without any doubt, that the impact will be substantial. Clearly, for example, no one can say precisely what effect the disadvantage presented by the DISC scheme, if allowed to persist, would have over the years ahead in persuading companies to undertake capital investment in new plants and equipment south of the border rather than in Canada. However, it is becoming increasingly obvious to a growing number of Canadians that the danger of such a development occurring is very great, certainly too great to permit us to stand idly by while waiting to see the full extent to which the dangers become realities.

The reason for the special measures we are proposing to strengthen the base of the production sector and the transformation of our economy must be well understood. That is due to the fact that this sector is far more vulnerable to the negative effects than any other by the different elements I have just mentioned. The primary resource sector of our economy is generally very competitive on the international markets and it is increasingly so following the changes arising in the world's supply and demand. In general, that sector holds a strong position in the context of our fiscal legislation and also receives considerable help through various government programs. Most service enterprises are protected against foreign competition by their nature itself. That is why they are exposed to the negative effects resulting from increasing foreign competition to the extent that the latter impedes the expansion of Canadian manufacturing and processing enterprises on which it relies for its progress.
I should like to remind the House that those two sectors will benefit from the stepped down deductions provided each year by the tax reform, which will result in reducing the tax rate to 46 per cent in 1976. Smaller businesses owned by Canadians will benefit from a generous tax arrangement, as provided by the fiscal reform: their rate has been set at 25 per cent. Additional help is being offered smaller manufacturing and processing firms through a reduction in rate from 25 to 20 per cent, because they are just as vulnerable as big businesses to stiff foreign competition.

What we are proposing, therefore, are concrete measures to deal with a concrete problem. They will have their greatest effect over the medium and long term, matching the medium and long-term nature of the threat that appears to confront Canada's manufacturing and processing industries. I am confident, however, that these measures are already playing a part and will continue to play a part over the months immediately ahead in stimulating a resurgence of capital investment by manufacturers and processors to modernize and expand their productive capacity-an opinion that is shared by the Economic Council at home and the OECD abroad. Noteworthy, too, is the strong endorsation of these measures by the treasurer of Ontario in his last budget.
The survey of private and public investment published last April forecast a 9 per cent increase in manufacturing

investment after two years of declining outlays, an estimate that may well turn out to be too low given parliamentary approval of these measures and the strong upsurge currently evident in our economy.
Some firms undoubtedly have already been encouraged to undertake new capital investment as a result of the measures announced in the budget last May, or are in the process of doing so. There is, however, a good deal of evidence that a number of companies are prepared to press ahead with major new capital projects once the legislation now before the House receives parliamentary approval, creating a significant number of new job opportunities in the process.
The proposed reduction in the tax burden borne by Canadian manufacturers and processors is designed to assist them to meet increasingly intense foreign competition in a variety of ways: to increase the efficiency of their operations and lower costs; to undertake more research so as to develop new and better products and technologies; to finance increased capital investment both to modernize their operations and to expand productive capacity and employment; and to increase their price competitiveness with foreign producers both at home and abroad.
One of our major national goals in Canada, and one of the major objectives of government policies, is to achieve a better balance of industrial developments in all parts of the country so as to provide a growing number of stable, well paying and satisfying jobs for Canadian workers. We Canadians have never been content to remain hewers of wood and drawers of water. In all parts of Canada, and especially in the eastern and western regions of the country, an increasingly intense effort is being made by governments at all levels to broaden industrial development, to extend production beyond the raw and semi-processed stage to the output of fully manufactured or processed goods for sale across Canada and around the world.
We want to encourage more advanced processing and refining of metals in this country, for example, and greater use of such metals for the production of manufactured or fabricated goods here. We want to make greater use of our extensive petroleum reserves to provide the foundation of expansion of the Canadian petrochemical industry. Broadening of our industrial base, in turn, will help to promote further expansion of the multiplicity of service industries which have become essential in a modern economy to support those sectors that produce hard goods. By increasing the after-tax rate of return on investment, these measures will help to achieve these national objectives by encouraging the establishment in many parts of the country of new manufacturing and processing industries and of supporting service industries.
I recognize that some members of this House have expressed misgivings about the effectiveness of these measures in achieving their intended purpose. As I told the House when I introduced the ways and means motion on which the legislation is based, I am anxious to do everything reasonably possible to meet the legitimate concerns that have been expressed about various aspects of these measures without impairing their effectiveness in achieving our objectives.
I recalled then that in my budget speech of February, 1973, I informed the House that the government intended
Income Tax Act (No. 2)
to establish a new procedure to monitor the effect of these measures in strengthening our manufacturing and processing industries. This review procedure would assess the effect of both the reduction in the corporate tax rate and the rapid write-off of machinery and equipment acquired by manufacturers and processors to the end of 1974. I proposed in the February budget that a report assessing the effectiveness of these measures, based on detailed information gathered from 1,000 individual companies and an in-depth study of some 200 of the largest corporations, be submitted to the House by the end of 1974. The submission of this report would coincide with the completion of the thorough examination which the government proposed to make of the entire capital cost allowance.
In a further effort to meet the concerns of some hon. members, I advised the House in my statement on May 29 that the government would submit an interim report to parliament by April 1 of next year providing as factual and objective an analysis as possible of the impact of these corporate measures on the manufacturing and processing sector during the early months they were in operation.
This interim report will be based on the responses to a questionnaire to be sent to around 1,000 manufacturing and processing companies representing all regions of the country, all industrial sectors and virtually all sizes of firms. In-depth interviews will also be held with some 200 of the largest corporations and around 50 small and medium sized manufacturing and processing companies. Information about the impact of the measures in encouraging the establishment of new enterprises will be obtained through the contacts with industry maintained by my own department, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. Through the extensive examination of this relatively large sample it will be possible to arrive at some estimates about their direct impact on the manufacturing and processing sector as a whole. Subsequent computer analyses of the results should also make it possible to make some reasonable estimate of the secondary effect of the measures on other areas of the economy.
I realize, of course, that it is no more possible to gauge precisely the extent to Which these measures serve their intended purpose than it is to gauge precisely the full extent of the threat they are intended to meet. I am confident, however, that the monitoring procedure will make it possible to prepare an interim report by next April that will provide a reliable indication of the early impact of these measures and that a still better picture will be provided through subsequent reports.
Coupled with the undertaking given by the government to submit an interim report on the outcome of the review and monitoring procedure that is being put into effect is a clause in the bill now before the House providing an opportunity by law for formal consideration of these measures by parliament after March 31, 1974. On the motion of 60 or more members calling for either termination of the reduced rate of taxation proposed for manufacturers and processors or for some reduction in its scope, the House would be required to debate the proposal within a period of 15 days. If the motion were approved, with or without amendment, the Minister of Finance would forthwith take such steps as are necessary in order that a measure giving

June 13, 1973
Income Tax Act (No. 2)
effect to the motion may be placed before the House without delay. At the committee stage, Mr. Speaker, I will address myself to the point that this parliamentary review, if ever initiated, will be meaningful and susceptible of a conclusion in this House.
No tax measure can be considered to be enacted for all time, particularly in a parliament made up of minorities. They must always be subject to change from time to time to meet changing conditions. Under all the circumstances, I do not consider it inappropriate to give parliament an opportunity to consider whether these very important measures are working effectively and whether their continuation is justified by future circumstances. It may well be, and I believe it probable, that parliament and the country will be so convinced of the effectiveness of these measures that the special provision to review will not be invoked.
I am confident that Canadian manufacturers and processors will make use of these measures in a way that serves our national objectives. I am sure they are all too well aware of the multiple threats confronting them and of the essential need to strengthen their position in order to survive and prosper in an increasingly competitive world. At the same time, however, I expect that the manufacturing and processing companies will recognize that an added onus is placed on them by the monitoring process and the provision establishing the opportunity for parliamentary review. The Canadian people and the Canadian parliament are going to be watching closely. They will want to be satisfied that these companies are making good use of the improvement in their financial resources to strengthen their competitive position, to increase capital investment and, above all, to create new employment opportunities. While shareholders must receive a fair and reasonable return on their investment over time if an enterprise is to remain viable, the purpose of this legislation is certainly not to provide them with a bonanza, as I am sure manufacturers and processors are well aware.
I would like to touch briefly on some of the additional concerns or criticisms that have been raised in various quarters during the course of the public debate over these proposals. Because of the particularly strong upsurge in the economy during the past six months and the substantial recovery that has taken place from the depressed profit position of Canadian industry generally, the suggestion is made that the reduction in the tax burden of manufacturers and processors has now become unnecessary. Nothing could be further from the truth. The current improvement in the position of Canadian manufacturers and processors is very welcome, but it in no way lessens the imperative need to strengthen the underlying structure of these industries to enable them to meet and match the increasingly intense competition from foreign companies in markets both at home and abroad that can be expected over the medium and longer term.
It is sometimes contended that the measures will be of little benefit to the slower growth regions of Canada where the primary resource industries have a more predominant economic role. The fact is that many such regions are now giving the highest priority to the development of secondary industry because of an increasing

awareness that excessive reliance on primary resources in the past has been one of the major causes of the slow growth of production, employment and incomes in such areas. I might point out that manufacturing grew by 11 per cent in the Atlantic provinces during the period 1966 to 1971, compared with a national growth averaging less than 2 per cent. These measures can play an important part in helping to reinforce this trend.
The measures will be of significant assistance to smaller Canadian manufacturers and processors who stand to benefit both from the fast two-year write-off on new machinery and equipment and from the reduction in their tax rate from 25 per cent to 20 per cent. The establishment of new enterprises will also be encouraged by the increased opportunity that will be made available to business to compete and operate profitably.
The measures have sometimes been criticized on the ground that they would provide significant benefit to foreign-controlled manufacturing and processing firms in Canada. The hard and unescapable fact, however, is that the jobs of a million or more workers provided directly or indirectly by such corporations today are just as much in jeopardy as those provided through companies that are domestically owned and controlled. As I said in my budget speech last February, I am sure these workers would not thank this parliament if it failed to take steps to counter the threat to their jobs because of some misguided sense of extreme nationalism. I have always said that we have to move toward greater control of our economy, and I mean this, but in a way and at a pace that does not jeopardize Canadian jobs.
A contrary concern that has been expressed is that the benefit provided to subsidiaries in Canada of U.S. corporations could be reduced or negated by new tax measures proposed by the United States. At the moment that remains no more than a hypothetical possibility. It is difficult to determine with any precision what impact the measures as proposed might have in relation to U.S. subsidiaries in Canada, and impossible to anticipate what measure, if any, might finally be approved by the U.S. Congress. We are following this situation very carefully through our contacts in Washington. It may be that what eventually emerges will require a response on our part. In my judgment, however, we would be extremely ill-advised to be deterred by hypothetical possibilities in the future from taking action to deal with the very real problems that confront us right now.
I am not going to deal now at any length with the allegations about corporate rip-offs such as have persuaded the New Democratic Party to oppose this and virtually all other measures of assistance to Canadian industry. Members of that party have become so blinded to hard reality by the glittering rhetoric of their leader, a throw back to an earlier era in Canadian industrial history, that they can no longer recognize, as they did only a year ago, the critical dangers confronting Canadian manufacturers and processors, dangers that are of very pressing concern to their close allies in the Canadian Labour Congress. The hollowness of the rhetoric of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) was illustrated within recent days when he reiterated his often-repeated contention that government programs and policies to assist Canadian indus-
June 13, 1973

try have done nothing to create employment in Canada in the past and will do nothing in the future. But it should be clearly evident that we must be doing something right in this country, Mr. Speaker, because the fact is that for several years Canada's increase in employment has far exceeded that of any nation in the industrialized world.
Between 1965 and 1970, the most recent period for which comprehensive international statistics are available, there were 1,300,000 new jobs created in Canada. That was 400,000, or 50 per cent more than the absolute increase in employment of all 15 countries then belonging to the European Economic Community and the European Free Trade Area combined, an area that has a population 13 V4 times larger than Canada's. In relative terms, employment in Canada during that period increased 57 per cent faster than in the United States, twice as fast as in Japan and 27 times as fast as in the 15 European nations taken together.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Although more current international comparisons are not available, there is every reason to believe-


An hon. Member:: What about inflation?


John Napier Turner: I could read those figures as well; they are also a credit to Canada. Although more current international comparisons are not available, there is every reason to believe that the rate of increase in employment in Canada has continued to exceed that of every other industrialized nation during recent years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: This happens to be a fact. During the past eight months alone, seasonally adjusted employment has been increasing at a faster rate than ever before in our history.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: As Statistics Canada reported this week, the number of Canadians at work across the country in May was up by 479,000, nearly half a million over the total a year ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: This was an increase of 6 per cent in total employment over that 12-month period, which was almost twice the rate of increase recorded in the United States during the same period, 3.2 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: It is not surprising that the leader of the New Democratic Party chooses to ignore these realities, given the fact that they totally undermine the very foundation of the platform on which he has decided to make his political stand.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat the strongly held conviction that I expressed to the House in my last budget:
What is at stake is not the welfare of the corporations and their shareholders. At stake is the welfare of every Canadian. At stake
Income Tax Act (No. 2)
are hundreds of thousands of jobs that today depend on our manufacturers staying in business and retaining their workers. At stake also are hundreds of thousands of good steady jobs in the manufacturing sector and supporting industries that will be required in future across Canada for our new workers. It is critical that we should all have a clear understanding of what is at issue. That is why I am committed and the government is committed to these measures.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) made some comments about the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis) and his glittering rhetoric. I would suggest, after his performance today, that the minister could well be inducted into some academy as master of selective statistical hogwash!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: We have had a lot of this in the question period during the past few days. However, the minister set one record: if the beginning of the debate on second reading of this bill can be considered as the first stirring of life in the measure, then there has been a period of political gestation with respect to the budget bill-the longest ever known in Commonwealth parliamentary history. It is one year, 36 days, four hours and 441/2 minutes since the minister introduced his proposal to a waiting and expectant House of Commons and country, saying, in effect, as he did so: This bill will shortly be brought down. This is what the country wants. There will be no time lost. This is what you want to have. This is what I, Dr. Turner, think you need, and you will have it shortly.
Mr. Speaker, I think all of us in this House have common objectives. We want to do the things that need to be done for the people of Canada-provide jobs, stability and a good life. I do not think there is any distinction among members in any part of this House in regard to those objectives. However, we have different methods of attempting to achieve them. Today the minister talked about these measures being promoted because, in his own words, "of the need to find millions of jobs". He told us about what he said in the budget speech in this House, and there was some mention of the Speech from the Throne.
It was all very healthy and very interesting, and some very fine statements were made during the course of those debates. But, Mr. Speaker, how can we rely upon the good faith, upon the bona fides of this government when we have a government and a minister who in their twisting and turning and vocal and intellectual acrobatics have succeeded in imposing a measure of deception upon this House and the country?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: In response to a great many questions in this House in regard to jobs, the minister said, "My first priority is jobs for the people".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: The minister, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and members of this ailing, impotent govern-
4728

June 13, 1973
Income Tax Act (No. 2)
ment opposite talked about stability and about measures to deal with inflation. During the course of the Speech from the Throne debate and the budget debate we were led by the minister and his colleagues to believe that this was the number one priority. We found out that even while the government was engaged in those debates, even while the minister was talking to us about the grave and urgent need for stability and jobs, there was a secret cabinet committee engaged in looking at what the priorities would be.
I have a copy of this document in my hand, Mr. Speaker. It has not yet been denied. I showed it to the Prime Minister in the House and there was no request to table it. The Prime Minister has been afraid, I submit. He has not denied its existence, and under all the circumstances we must take it to be a fact that there was such a document, such a cabinet committee and the results of that committee were approved by the cabinet. The last meeting of the committee was on May 15, 1973, and it was confirmed by the cabinet on May 17, 1973. If this is not so, let some responsible minister stand up and deny it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: Even some irresponsible minister.


Gerald William Baldwin: When one reads through that document to see precisely the length of time the cabinet must have taken to consider these issues, one can come to no other rational conclusion than at the time the government was engaged, at least in the budget debate and the debate on the Speech from the Throne, they were directing their attention toward an entirely different set of priorities. Where were jobs? Where was inflation? Out of a list of ten priorities, they fall in seventh place. That is what the minister and this government thought about jobs and inflation.


George Harris Hees: Wait till we tell the people about you, John.


Gerald William Baldwin: I am very thankful, Mr. Speaker, for the chorus behind me. These hon. gentlemen will be engaged, at a later time in this debate, in pointing out the defects and faults of this proposal. Let me make it plain that our position has been set out by the leader of our party and there are certain conditions attached to it. As a result of what the leader of our party has said on several occasions, the Minister of Finance came out of his fortress carrying a white flag. There was a conditional capitulation; there was a surrender by the minister.


George Harris Hees: John the brave!


Gerald William Baldwin: I give him credit for that. When a minister of a government is willing to listen to reasonable proposals made by the opposition and accept them, then I think we have to give him some credit.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Crouse:: You are not all bad, John.


Gerald William Baldwin: That will make up for some of the defects in his past conduct.

We are being asked today to debate a bill that will introduce what the Minister of Finance has called the "first major step in the development of a new industrial strategy". In the more than 13 months that have elapsed since the promise of that first major step we have progressed sufficiently to know that we should not wait with bated breath for a second major step, for there might not ever be one. Apparently we were so reckless in starting out that we got hopelessly mired with the first stride- rather like the muskeg you sometimes find in the Peace River country.
Could it be that the government does not believe in rushing things? This is not a rushing government, Mr. Speaker. That would at least partially explain the delay in bringing these corporate tax measures before the House. First promised in the budget of May, 1972, these measures were supposed "to protect existing jobs and provide wellpaying new jobs for Canadians". I am quoting from the minister's statement. Yet though job creation, as the minister never tired of telling us ad nauseam, was the first priority, and though unemployment was well in excess of 6 per cent, it took the government until now, when the economy is supposedly booming and must now be restrained, to attempt to put into effect these measures that are intended to stimulate the economy.
These measures were also supposed to help Canadian manufacturing and processing firms to withstand foreign competition. "It is a matter of some urgency", the Minister of Finance was declaring about six months after his first budget, "that all of the tax measures proposed in the budget should be given early consideration and approval by parliament." Well, it took the Minister of Finance seven more months, because of an inept legislative program by this government and this cabinet, before he brought these "urgent" measures before the House for consideration. All I can say is, thank God the land is strong, for God only knows the state we would be in today if we had to rely only on the management and speed of this government.
When reductions and accelerated write-offs for manufacturing and processing industries were first introduced, the position taken by this party was that though the intent of the minister-to improve the ability of Canadian business to compete both domestically and abroad-was honourable, the method of going about it was exceedingly defective. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) in the course of the debate following that budget stated clearly our objections to the measures as introduced, and I quote as follows from the statement of the Leader of the Opposition:
-the proposal of the minister falls far short of being an effective tool to expand Canadian manufacturing and processing. I also point out that there is really nothing here to encourage Canadians to invest more of their money in their economy in order to play a bigger part in the ownership of that Canadian economy in the future. I also point out to the Minister of Finance, that, in so far as he claims that reducing these taxes will make these corporations more profitable, this is just as attractive to foreign capital as it is to Canadian capital. There is nothing in the minister's proposal which encourages Canadians as such to acquire a bigger share of the economy in the future.
Those words are recorded on page 2266 of Hansard of that year. Last October, pursuing the course of consistency

which is the trademark of the Leader of the Opposition, he said, when asked what he would do with respect to the corporate tax proposals: "I would think we would be under some moral obligation to carry them through for the time being at least." Our position was then, and has been since, that there were sufficient doubts concerning the equity and efficacy of the proposed corporate tax changes to warrant their not being made a permanent feature of our tax structure.
Firstly, the proposed measures offer little or no aid to those companies which are in greatest need of aid, since the availability of their benefits is predicated on high profits. Accordingly, these measures, the primary justification of which is increased international competition, will help least these companies which suffer most severely from such competition. They offer no encouragement to start new business, nor do they improve the capacity of young companies to survive.
Secondly, most benefits from the reduced tax will accrue to foreign-controlled corporations which account for more than 60 per cent of all manufacturing profits in Canada. It is doubtful that the tax cuts will have a perceptible influence on the behaviour of these corporations.
Thirdly, the proposed corporate tax changes are inequitable and maladjusted. The intended aid will accrue primarily to firms in central Canada, where four-fifths of manufacturing firms are located. This is the area where, so the minister and his advisers maintain, employment is already so high that any additional stimulus might fuel inflation. The measures will do little to help Canada's most disadvantaged regions which need economic stimulus the most.
Finally, the measures are discriminatory. For one thing, they do not apply to the more labour-intensive service industries which employ two-thirds of all Canadian workers and are frequently subject to intensive international competition. It is perhaps true that a strong manufacturing sector will help the service industry as well, but there is no reason why the spin-offs cannot work the other way as well. A more dynamic service sector can increase the demand for manufactured goods and lower costs of services to manufacturing. Studies by the economic community in fact show that the manufacturing sector performs best when the rest of the economy is also strong.
While the government proposals will reduce taxes for manufacturers and processors, they will increase them for all other businesses, small and large. As well, as Dominion Stores Limited pointed out in submissions to the Commons food prices committee, the proposed tax reduction will favour service enterprises which are vertically integrated, giving them an unfair competitive advantage. Because of all these objections and doubts we refused, as the Leader of the Opposition said, to give our unconditional support to the tax measures as proposed by the government.
The Leader of the Opposition indicated the condition for our support. He made it plain both in speeches in this House and outside this House. The minister, as I said before, has actually surrendered the position which he originally took and has adopted the logical and sensible attitude of the Leader of the Opposition and my party. The Minister of Finance himself, while asking us to approuve
Income Tax Act (No. 2)
measures that would cost the treasury $500 million, has presented no evidence to show that his measures will in fact work. We have only his optimism to guide us-and his optimism must, I submit, be subject to certain scrutiny. The closest he never came to providing such evidence was in a statement following the budget when he said, according to a press release of May 8, 1972, "I hope they use it"- meaning the money made available by the tax cuts-"for increased growth, for new competitiveness, for new jobs." He put forward no measures to ascertain that business would act according to his hope, yet his proposals were offered for adoption for all time, forever and ever, thus emphasizing the fact that, to use his own words, "they are permanent incentives to the manufacturing and processing industries in this country." Those words, again, are taken from his press conference of May 8, 1972. It is this sort of permanence that the leader of my party, in view of the doubts just expressed, was not prepared to accept. We were not prepared to accept the conditions being laid down by the minister.
So that there could be no misunderstanding, on March 21, 1973, the Leader of the Opposition advised the Minister of Finance that my party "will not support a budget bill provision making this special reduced rate a permanent feature of the Canadian tax system." The Minister of Finance went out of his way, as he had done so often in the past, to demonstrate his disagreement with the Conservative proposal. The minister is obviously a slow learner, or likes eating his own words. That is an unacceptable diet. In any event, two days following the statement of the Leader of the Opposition, in a speech before the Canadian Club of Toronto the Minister of Finance declared:
I have examined Mr. Stanfield's statement to the press on the subject of corporate tax measures and I am not moved to change what I have said to you today.
That was on March 23. On May 29, the same minister made the following announcement in this House, as recorded at page 4198 of Hansard:
-it is my intention to put before this House by April 1 of next year an interim report based on the review and monitoring procedure which I described earlier. This will give members an early opportunity to begin to assess the results of these measures on the basis of facts and figures. Members will also have an opportunity to make constructive suggestions before the final report is submitted by the end of 1974.
In this context, the government will include in the legislation a provision whereby parliament will have a fresh opportunity to consider the incentive measures. Upon the request of 60 members of this House, and after the measures have been in force for a reasonable period of time, namely, after April 1, 1974-
That was only three months beyond the period which the Leader of the Opposition suggested this party would agree to. A difference of three months was not that large that we could not go along with the proposal. The minister continued:
-the government will take the steps necessary to provide an early occasion for this House to re-examine these tax incentives and, if the House so decided, the measures would be withdrawn thereafter in whole or in part.
The minister has now come full circle: instead of offering measures that are to be permanent and have no need to be watched, he has now offered incentives which will be closely monitored and will have to justify their existence or else be terminated. It is what the Conservative Party
4730

June 13, 1973
Income Tax Act (No. 2)
has asked. We like to think that it is the government's recognition of the wisdom of our approach rather than its fear of defeat that convinced it once more to adopt another of our proposals. I know there are high-minded gentlemen opposite who are more concerned about the welfare of the country than their own defeat. We do not see any difference there.
Much will depend on what happens in committee. The minister indicated today that he had some doubts in his mind. There have been consultations with the minister with regard to the fears we expressed about the doubtful quality of the review process. However, this is a new subject. Apparently the government has at long last recognized the utility of the House of Commons. The Minister of Finance in his treatment of this measure, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in bringing forward his resolution the other day, have suddenly recalled the existence of the House of Commons and have remembered that it serves a useful function.
I would commend their course of conduct to some of the minister's cabinet colleagues, such as the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras). He is dealing with problems to do with immigration and with the Unemployment Insurance Commission resulting from a silly set of bureaucratic directives that were sent out by those who do not understand the problems in these areas. I suggest to the minister that he bring before the House the problems which have been created. This House has the capacity to deal with them. In this House there is accumulated wisdom far beyond that of the minister and his civil servants for dealing with the serious and difficult problems which the government itself has created. I am speaking not only on my own behalf but on behalf of the members of my party, and particularly on behalf of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) who has kept a close eye on what the minister has been doing. It is about time the House of Commons did what it is supposed to do and dealt with those problems itself.
After second reading this bill will move into committee. The minister has already indicated a reasonable degree of flexibility on one issue and I hope he will continue. I do not need to outline the obvious defects which exist in the review process which the minister has set out, such as the question of time and the question of concluding debates. I hope the minister will be reasonable.
No amendments can be moved on second reading; at this stage it is impossible for us to put forward our suggestions in this regard. I hope the minister will be guided by the very sensible advice he received from the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and during the course of the committee hearings in this House will produce a workable and sensible review mechanism. If that is the case, quite a few of the minister's troubles may well be over, at least for the time being.
I now come to the monitoring procedure. When the minister bared these tax cuts to a waiting world 13 months ago he declared them to be:
-medium and long term in their nature and structural in the impact. They are also intended as a permanent incentive.
However, when he presented his budget on February 19 this year he had obviously lost his confidence in their efficacy because he told us he wanted a monitoring procedure to assess the effect of these corporate measures on prices and jobs. We can only hope that the experts assigned this task are more adept than their colleagues in the finance department who apparently were out nearly $1 billion in their estimates but still retain their jobs. Let us hope, too, that the minister approaches the implementation of this proposal with more determination and finesse than his colleague responsible for consumer affairs who has succeeded in confusing parliament, the country, consumers and industry with his devious twists and turns as he grapples with his "Bird-watching" Food Price Review Board.
It is nice to know the government accepts proposals of the Conservative Party-and this is not only because our proposals are good. On October 30 last the government received a very good kick in that portion of its anatomy especially designed for the receipt of corporal punishment. This has prompted them to be much more reasonable. We have made a number of proposals. Some are included in this legislation. There was the indexing of the income tax rates to the cost of living. The minister has come full circle there and has accepted the proposals of the Leader of the Opposition despite the fact that in Truro, Nova Scotia, of all places, on June 6, 1972, the minister made these solemn commitments:
I would like to deal more specifically now with Mr. Stanfield's proposal to tax personal incomes based on constant dollars. While the Conservative leader alleged that the federal government has a vested interest in inflation (in contrast to earlier accusations that the government was too zealous in trying to combat it), the fact of the matter is that the government is one of the chief victims of inflation because it has only limited scope in offsetting its own sharply rising costs. The government must continue to pay its bills in current dollars. The only way it could maintain its revenues to pay for existing services under the kind of constant-dollar tax scheme proposed by Mr. Stanfield would be by progressively increasing personal income tax rates. This was acknowledged by Mr. Stanfield himself in reply to questions I put to him on the floor of the House during the course of the debate.
What a whale of a difference an election makes! This may not be completely relevant but I point it out so that the minister will maintain this position of flexibility. It is much better for the country. The question of capital gains tax on family farms has been accepted by the government. There is also the small business legislation just introduced by the government, as well as the personal income tax reduction. Just the other day the government saw fit to accept some very sensible conclusions put forward by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) which improved the housing bill. It is still a bit of a mess but at least it has been improved.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: I must give that degree of credit to the minister. I hope he retains this flexibility with regard to these issues. I predict a reasonably good future for him if he continues to listen to the Leader of the Opposition, myself and members of my party.
I wish to say a few words to my friends in the New Democratic Party. The hon. member for York South will be replying shortly. I anticipate what he will say. Among

June 13, 1973

other things, the hon. member will be getting ready to drag out of cold storage and dust off his attack on corporate welfare bums. Like Don Quixote, supported by his assorted Sancho Panzas he will put on his rusty armour and gallop madly in all directions. However, some of his thunder may well be muted by the very extraordinary circumstances surrounding the mechanics and the detail of the presentation of this and accompanying legislation, the division of the bills, the type of review procedure, the timing of the bills, the device used in connection with quick write-offs, and so on.
I recall the grins on the faces of members of the cabinet the day the minister made his announcement and the Leader of the Opposition responded. There were grins of relief on the faces of the minister, the Prime Minister, the government House leader and my friends to the left. This suggested that the two parties drew together in a common political cause calculated to keep the Liberals in power in pursuance of their belief, which somehow the NDP seems to have accepted, that they, the Liberals, have a divine right to rule and will engage in any kind of political chicanery to that end. This debate will also permit the NDP to have an opportunity to stand and vote against the government. I know they have been waiting for this for a long time. They have been very frustrated because of their inability to vote against the government. This device was worked out between the two parties to enable this course to be followed.


George Harris Hees: They have been what is commonly known as shacking up.


Gerald William Baldwin: I hope that remark will not be credited to me, Mr. Speaker. It will be welcomed by some of the disillusioned followers of the New Democratic Party in the country who have been watching with dismay and regret the stance the NDP have taken in the House so far. It is such a pitiful, palpable device and is so self-evident that it will not fool the people of Canada. It has not succeeded in fooling them, as the Gallup poll published today indicates.
It was common knowledge around the hill and in the press gallery some time before the Minister of Finance made his statement and announced his scheme that the two parties had a common cause in this regard. There is no question about it. They have a perfect right to do so, but they have to stand by the consequences. I do not know exactly what input the NDP had in the Minister of Finance's changes and in the method he used to approach the conundrum, but it will take very powerful evidence to convince me there was not some liaison to allow them both to get out of a very difficult situation and, hopefully, to draw together against Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition whom they both regard as their common enemy and most dangerous threat in this parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: This will be a day for the New Democratic Party. I understand this, as they have helped set the rules under which they are debating this measure and undoubtedly collaborated to that extent. But let me tell the Minister of Finance that tomorrow will be another day and another vote. Next week there will be another day and
Income Tax Act (No. 2)
another vote, and next year there will be another day and another vote. I suggest to the government that there will be an election one of these days, when the government and the New Democratic Party will be called upon to give an account of their conduct in this House and of this illicit relationship they have had together. I suggest that this will be a day when the god of election battles will require a very stern accounting from hon. gentlemen opposite and to my left.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of talk about minority government. Minority government can work. It has worked in the past and will work again. But not a minority government principally composed of an ailing, impotent and ineffective group whose record eight months after the election and after almost six months of parliament has been barren of result in the past and empty of promise for the future. Some day people will be asking hon. friends to my left why they exposed the good people of Canada to the tricks of these artful dodgers of the political world.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, we have just listened to a scenario which the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) read, and I like him well enough to suggest that he might even have written it, though I am not sure.


Gerald William Baldwin: Parts of it, the good parts.


David Lewis: Let me tell him that all of his scenario about the NDP and the Liberals having discussed the thing now before us-and I call it a "thing" quite deliberately-is so much hogwash, and he knows it. When he attempts to say the kind of thing he has said, he at least has the decency to smile, which is a form of honesty on his part that I appreciate.
Before I go any further let me point out that it is obvious that when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and the government learned that we would under no circumstances support the corporate income tax cut and fast write-off provisions, they then looked around to see what they could do in order to survive, since we made it clear to them that, whatever the consequences might be, we would vote against this measure.
It was very easy for the government to find a way. All the Minister of Finance had to do was to propose some kind of monitoring or review mechanism, put a date to it that was not far beyond December 31, 1973, and he would feel quite confident that the Conservative Party would then have the face-saving device that they needed so as to do what they intended to do all the time. When the hon. member for Peace River talks the rubbish he has just talked, he knows darned well that there has been much more collusion between his party and the Minister of Finance on this issue than there could have been in any discussions we had with the minister.
I do not want to spend too much time on the speech of the hon. member for Peace River because I want to deal with the bill, but the hon. member's speech contained some very valid and serious criticisms of the bill. He said it was discriminatory, that it would not do any good, that it would serve foreign-controlled corporations more than Canadian corporations. At the end of it I expected him to

June 13, 1973
Income Tax Act (No. 2)
say, "In view of this, we will oppose the bill". But no, Mr. Speaker. The logical conclusion to his criticisms was something that he could not utter because his party cannot afford to oppose corporate concessions today any more than it has been able to afford them in the past. Because their financial resources might dry up, if not wholly at least partially, the hon. member for Peace River had to go easy in this kind of situation.
It was very significant that the Minister of Finance, when making the proposal regarding the monitoring and review procedures, placed in the bill the provision that 60 members were required to sign a petition before a resolution to reconsider the matter could come before parliament. Not 20 members, or 25, which would have made certain that there would be a demand for a review, but 60 members. The Minister of Finance knew perfectly well that if the number were high enough the Conservatives would have to put a resolution on the order paper, and that that resolution would never get on the order paper.
Let us look at the facts the way they are, rather than letting the Tories attempt to play their own game. I am certain that whatever the Gallup poll may say today, or whatever it said two months ago when it had us up and the Tories down, we have taken the right position in this parliament. What is more, we intend to continue to take the same position and to try our utmost to make this parliament work. But not at the expense of something with which basically we disagree.
The Minister of Finance very kindly referred-I suppose he intended it as a compliment-to my "glittering rhetoric" which has blinded our party. I am sorry I cannot return the compliment; I can only say to him that his exuberant verbosity cannot take the place of thinking, try as he might. In fact, I was almost going to say that his soporific verbiage does not make the bill any better now than it was before he spoke.
Let me deal with some of the economic factors here. The fact is that what the minister is now doing makes no sense whatever in terms of Canada's economy. Let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, of two things. The minister said during his February budget-I do not have his exact words but I am sure I am not misrepresenting him-that he made more disposable income available to Canadians through the individual income tax cut, at a level that would not be too harmful to the economy, and we approved of this. Instead of making a higher individual income tax cut and putting another $500 million at the disposal of the ordinary taxpayer, the minister said, "I have to keep the disposable income in the hands of the Canadian purchaser at a level that will not heat up the economy too much".
Then remember too, Mr. Speaker, that the minister and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) have been saying for days now that it is important to allow interest rates to go up, because the economy of Canada was getting to the point where the demand for loans is too high and the heating up of the economy is becoming dangerous from the point of view of inflation.
He hesitates to give any more to the individual taxpayer. He knows of the higher interest rates and the higher costs to ordinary Canadian purchasers of homes and

goods, but he hesitates not one whit to heat up the Canadian economy by giving the corporations a further $500 million concession in tax exemptions. That, Mr. Speaker, is economic lunacy. If the economy of Canada has reached the point where it is heating up too much and you have to be careful not to heat it up any more, what conceivable sense does it make to give more money to the corporations, allegedly to have higher investment, and heat up the economy more?
What kind of sense does it make for the Conservative Party to say that because the government has given us three months and we will have a review, therefore they will support this proposal and vote for it on second reading? That is the situation if I understood the hon. member for Peace River correctly.
It is not merely the injustices and the inequities which are introduced by this measure which bother us. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, it is economically invalid at this time in Canada's development. The minister boasted about the high increase in employment in Canada. Let me remind you that when you start low enough you have nowhere to go but up. When the government in its 1968-69 policies forced employment down, then unemployment went up, so that the situation could not be anything else when unemployment is reduced than to have employment increase. The minister really has no reason to boast about it.
When the minister compares Canada's record in the realm of employment and unemployment with Japan or some countries in Europe, then it really does become rather ridiculous because anyone who knows anything at all about the economies of Japan, West Germany and, until very recently, Britain, or Sweden knows perfectly well that they have not only had full employment in those countries but have imported labour-in West Germany to the extent of 1,500,000 workers. When everybody is employed, how can you have further increases in employment? These comparisons are really not worthy of the Minister of Finance and are patently wrong.
We oppose this bill, not because of any glittering rhetoric or any nonsense of that sort but because we are convinced, through the history of this country, that these concessions do not help the economy. They never create many jobs, if any. They merely serve to increase the profits of corporations and increase the amount of deferred taxes of large corporations. That is the result of these fast write-offs. Let us spend a moment on the fast write-offs which are part of this package. There is absolutely no evidence in the history of this country to show that these fast write-offs have done anything for the economy except to make the foreign-owned corporations more powerful and more able to buy up the rest of Canada's economy. That is all they have ever done.
There is no evidence that these fast write-offs have created anything except a volume of available investment capital to the corporations which they can use without having to pay any interest on them. These increases in the interest rates, which the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister say are necessary in order to meet the international situation and to lower the size of the demand for loans, do not accomplish what is claimed for them.
The fact is that anyone who studies Canada's economy knows perfectly well that with the retained earnings in
June 13, 1973

the hands of the large corporations, many of them foreign-owned, with the amount of deferred taxes, and with their available resources, they need not go to the capital market except when we undertake a nonsense proposal like the James Bay project or the Mackenzie valley pipeline. That kind of proposal requires the kind of investment where people have to go to the market to find the money. For the regular expansion of General Motors, General Electric, Ford, Westinghouse or Domtar these corporations have enough in their retained earnings, in their depreciation reserves and in their deferred taxes; they do not have to go to the money market to carry out their expansion.
The only people who are hurt by higher interest rates are the small Canadian businessmen and the ordinary Canadian purchaser of a house or any kind of durable goods he may require in his home. They are the only people hurt, not the large corporations. The fast write-off has proven historically to be of no value in the creation of jobs. I cannot understand how the Minister of Finance and his advisers in the ministry of finance think, and I do not know what they use for thinking. I do not know why they think the rest of the people in Canada are so unintelligent they will buy their proposals.
If the fast write-offs, the capital cost allowances, do play any part in the job market, they necessarily and logically play the part of reducing the numbers of jobs, not increasing them. New industry cannot take advantage of the fast write-off. If it does, it needs a constant flow of capital investment and capital purchases in order to retain deferred taxes. So what you are doing is saying to the existing manufacturing firm and the existing processing firm, "You can buy new equipment and write it off in two years. You can set aside"-I don't know how many millions or hundreds of millions of dollars in deferred taxes- "and you have capital without interest for a long time." What will that industry do? I suggest it will change its obsolescent equipment for new, labour-saving equipment and will be able to produce more, with less labour and fewer jobs than at this time. How in heaven's name can anyone sensibly and logically argue that fast write-offs will produce jobs in Canada, when in fact they reduce the demand for jobs by the introduction of labour-saving devices if they do anything at all?
I looked at the investment survey for 1973 carried out by Statistics Canada and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. We must remember that the offer of fast write-offs was made on May 8, 1972, but actually capital investment in 1972 declined from 1971. This did not play the slightest part in increasing the investment of those firms so far as the statistics are concerned. I have no doubt that to the extent this did anything, it played a part in increasing profits.
Now we come to the corporation income tax cut. Here the Minister of Finance really plays the fiddle. Ever since I started studying economics a long time ago, back in 1927-28 when I entered university, I have heard the same tune played by the traditional economists: If you want to help the economy, cut the taxes of the corporation. If there is any logic to that argument of the Minister of Finance, this country would be best off it we had no corporate income tax at all. That is the logic of his proposition. Every time I have listened to a budget-all but one-I
Income Tax Act (No. 2)
have heard this argument. It is significant that the one exception was the budget of February 19, 1973. Significantly enough, the government knew that if that budget contained any corporate concessions, this party would vote against it and the government would go down. Significantly enough, the budget of February 19, 1973, contained not a wink of a concession to corporations in this country and that is why we were able to support it.
Every time there has been a budget we have had some kind of concession made to the corporations of this country such as fast write-offs, income tax credits, and for the wealthy people dividend tax credits. All these things were supposed to strengthen the economy and increase the amount of Canadian ownership. The fact is that with the fast write-offs, income tax concessions and the tax dividend credits, in 1969, 1970 and 1971 we had a recession in this country, and the extent of the foreign control of the economy has been increasing year by year by year.
The Minister of Finance and the ministry of finance refuse to learn the lesson that these things simply do not work in terms of the economy, let alone in terms of the fairness of the tax system. I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that Canada was the last country in the western world to impose a capital gains tax. We were told over the years that the reason we could not have a capital gains tax in this country was that if we did it would slow down the economy at a time when we were trying to influence Canadians to own more of Canada. However, the appearance of the capital gains tax did not prevent our having cyclical recessions and having the economy more and more under foreign control.
None of these measures has worked. The reason is that they are blunt instruments. They hit all the economy and all elements of the economy, instead of hitting at the particular problem which the economy faces. If we need measures to deal with the fact the the Americans are determined to pull jobs back to the United States and out of Canada, you will not do it by reducing the income tax rate in respect of the corporations, because if the United States is determined to do that it will find some other way. After you have cut the income tax rate from 49 per cent to 40 per cent, the Americans in Washington will think of something else in answer to this. What will the Minister of Finance do? If he cuts the income tax rate from 40 per cent to 30 per cent, then they will think of something else. This is a silly way in which to attack the problem, because when you decrease the income tax payable by the corporations, that decrease is not translated into a decrease in prices but, rather, is translated into an increase in the profits of the corporations.
This is a silly way to do it because you never catch up with what they do in the United States. If that becomes a problem there are direct ways to deal with it. The direct way is by saying to the Americans that we are not a weak country, that we are not standing on our knees before them, and that if they are going to take steps to cripple the economy of Canada we will take steps to make sure that they do not cripple it.
There are all sorts of ways to do that. I suspect that the direct way of insisting that the production be Canadian in

June 13, 1973
Income Tax Act (No. 2)
various industries might accomplish something in counteracting the measures in Washington, whereas the income tax cut will accomplish nothing in that regard and will merely give the corporations a further addition to their profits. Their profits have been phenomenal. What kind of justice permits this parliament, this government and the Tories in this House to hand more profits to the corporations at this time? Corporate profits increased 16 per cent in 1971 over 1970. They increased 20 per cent in 1972 over 1971, and in the first quarter of this year they increased at an annual rate of 53 per cent over 1972.
The Minister of Finance and the Tories are in agreement that we should adopt measures in this House which would increase the profits of the corporations, measures which according to the Minister of Finance on May 8, 1972, will cost the federal treasury $500 million, at a time when the corporations are making this level of profits. If there is any threat internationally to be met, then they have a sufficient profit margin to be able to meet it out of their existing profits. It is morally absolutely wrong to add to their profits at the expense of the ordinary Canadian taxpayer.
I come back to what I said when I believe the minister, I am sure unavoidably, was absent from the House. I was saying that this is the wrong anticyclical measure. If corporate profits were on the way down, then there might be some sense-I am not at all sure there would even then be sense-in increasing the profits of the corporations with the thought that we would be doing something good for the Canadian economy. Surely, however, there is no sense at all, in terms of elementary economics, to increasing the profits of corporations and to increasing the availability of disposal income in their hands at a time when according to the minister and his government the economy is heating up.
We must be careful about how much we give the individual taxpayer and how much we allow the interest rate to go up, not by putting the foot on the brake, as I think the Prime Minister once said, but by keeping it very lightly on the gas pedal. What he is doing in this bill is the exact opposite to what he is doing in every other area of the economy. That is simply wrong. In economic terms it is unacceptable. In social terms and, in my view, in moral terms, it is unforgivable to do what is now proposed before us, because at the same time that corporate profits went up 20 per cent in 1972 over 1971 and 16 per cent in
1971	over 1970, total labour income in this country increased 10 per cent in 1971 and only 11 per cent in 1972. And when you deal with total labour income you are not dealing merely with the lower echelons of labour but with the total income, which includes presidents of corporations, vice-presidents and managers of corporations and all wage and salary earners in this country. That increased by only 10 per cent and 11 per cent compared to 16 per cent and 20 per cent respectively for 1971 and 1972.
When you look at the manufacturing industry, the industry the minister now wants to help with more profits, you find that the average rate of earnings in manufacturing rose 8.6 per cent in 1971 over 1970 and 7.9 per cent in
1972	over 1971-and we are prepared to give these manufacturing and processing industries a further $500 million of the taxpayers' money. We cannot buy that. It is not

glittering rhetoric or any other kind qf rhetoric; it is simply that our policy or approach is oriented against the idea that what the corporations want the corporations get. This has been the policy of the Liberals and the Conservatives for 100 years. What the corporations, the big boys, demand, the big boys get every time in every way, or take it if they do not get it. But the ordinary taxpayer in Canada, when he demands just some kind of equity or justice gets a crumb, as he did in the February, 1973, budget. He did not get as much as was given to the corporations.
I want to deal with the review mechanism. I said earlier in my remarks that obviously as a result of what my party said and what I as its leader said inside parliament, outside parliament and in conversation which he and I once had about the general situation, the Minister of Finance became convinced that we would not support this bill, these tax concessions, no matter how packaged and no matter what the consequences.
Even at the time when the Conservative Party was more anxious to have an election than they appear to be now, we took exactly the same position no matter what the consequences. He looked for a way of winning support elsewhere, and I do not condemn him for that. That is the way to survive in a minority parliament. And if on several occasions the government looked to our support-I make no bones about it-we were glad to give it. They have just as much right to look for support in another direction if our support is not available. However, so far as I am concerned I do not buy this review mechanism, for several reasons. First, I hope the hon. member for Peace River and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), who is not here but may read what I say, or may be informed-


An hon. Member:: He is with the president of General Motors.


David Lewis: -will not take offence when I say that I never bought this statement of the Leader of the Opposition that he did not want this to be a permanent part of the tax system. That always sounded very hollow to me because there is nothing that is a permanent part of the tax system. We have at least one budget each year-in the last few years we have had two and three budgets a year- and every time there is a budget the tax system is changed in some way. I never bought that statement of the Leader of the Opposition and I am not at all sure how deep it came from the heart of the hon. gentleman. It is silly to talk about anything being a permanent part of the tax system when the tax system is changed with every budget at least every year and sometimes two or three times a year. But it gave the Minister of Finance an opening.


An hon. Member:: And he took it.


David Lewis: The Leader of the Opposition, having made a statement which the Minister of Finance knew perfectly well had no meaning and no relevance to the fiscal system of this country, the minister or his colleagues or he and his colleagues, said, "We have that guy now. He does not want it to be a permanent part of the system. He says he wants it to end on December 31, 1973. We will tell him that we
June 13, 1973

will have a monitoring system, and next April 1 60 of his members can demand a review and if it is carried then it will become law". The Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Peace River said today, "You bought my idea. Now we are ready to support you. I made a meaningless and irrelevant statement and you were sensible enough to pick it up. Let us shake hands. We are again together as we always have been and as we ought to be". But it is a gimmick and it is a dangerous gimmick. It is an essential part of our kind of parliamentary system that the initiative for taxation, for fiscal policies, for budgetary policies is the initiative of the government. The Minister of Finance, in order to survive, is ready to leave it to the initiative of 60 backbench members to decide.
I also have no use for it because that kind of gimmickry will sometimes hit us in the face. The Canadian people are not unintelligent, even when they vote against my party. They use their intelligence and I have great respect for them. They will recognize this as a gimmick created only for the purpose of keeping the Liberal government in office. That kind of gimmick is no good.


George Harris Hees: Wait till 9.45 tomorrow night, David, and see where you are; see how you vote.


David Lewis: Since you are being impolite enough not to speak through Mr. Speaker but to me directly, I will be impolite enough, George, not to speak through Mr. Speaker and tell you that you will see where we are and it will not be a further attempt of the Conservative Party to talk through both sides of its mouth at the same time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: I said earlier that we are determined to do our best to make this parliament work. There are a good many things that we hope this parliament will accomplish and we will co-operate with all members of parliament to accomplish those things. This is worse than a gimmick. I am sorry that I must say this, and I am not saying it to offend or to insult anybody, but I cannot trust a review that is carried out by the Department of Finance itself. I cannot trust it because they are the people who have presented these policies for God knows how many years. They are the people who have been convinced about the value of fast write-offs and income tax cuts for corporations, and suddenly they will be the people who will become so objective as to eat their own words and their own ideas and ignore their own prejudices. Like the devil! No one does that; no one can do that.
People who for years have been responsible for a policy cannot be trusted with a review of the same policy. You do not need to be a genius to see that. If you went into an industry, a factory or any office and asked the people responsible for the policies and direction of that industry to make a review as to whether the policies they have always supported are good, you would not get an objective opinion.
Therefore, I think that this so-called monitoring or review is worth nothing. When the Minister of Finance tells me that it will be objective, that it will be based on facts and figures, I say I have lived long enough to know exactly what that means. The person who arranges the agenda sets the tone. The way in which you write up a fact
Income Tax Act (No. 2)
sets the tone. The way in which you arrange the figures in a column and the way in which you set up the various columns sets the tone. There is no objectivity in that sense. They will not be facts and figures; they will be facts and figures as seen through the eyes of people who have always been committed to the policies which they are now supposed to monitor, review and judge. I cannot have any confidence in that kind of review.
The Minister of Finance makes a great deal of the fact that small businesses will have a reduction in the income tax rate of 25 per cent to 20 per cent. If his bill were limited to that or if it were limited to a reduction in the income tax rate to Canadian-owned firms only, then we might have taken a look at that bill; but in reality the small Canadian businessman will only get crumbs out of this. He will get a 20 per cent income tax rate instead of a 25 per cent rate if he has less than $50,000 in profits, if my memory serves me right and I am pretty sure it does. So you take 5 per cent of $40,000, if he makes a $40,000 profit, which comes to $2,000, as against 9 per cent of $100 million profit for the large corporation, or a $10 million profit.
The Minister of Finance is comparing the elephant and the rabbit, and he thinks he has got us in a corner because of the little crumb he offers the small Canadian businessman. If he is prepared to change his bill so that the income tax concession-this does not have anything to do with the fast write-offs, because they are of no use at all-is limited only to Canadiafi-owned firms, then one might look at it because then it might have some value in promoting Canadian ownership as against the multinational corporations that control over 60 per cent of our manufacturing and, although I have not seen this figure and I can be corrected if I am wrong, I venture to suggest control over 80 per cent of our processing in Canada.
I feel strongly about this because, for the reasons I have given, in our view these concessions to the corporations will not do anything for the economy, will not promote employment and will only increase their profit. I feel strongly about this because of the things that I see $500 million could do for the ordinary people of Canada. I said this the other day and I make no apology for repeating it: $500 million is $100 million more than the increase we have given to the old age pensioners and the adjustment in the cost of living allowance for old age pensioners; $500 million, if we could spare it from the federal treasury, could give another $10 to $20 a month to the old age pensioners of this country.
We have been waiting for weeks for legislation to deal with disability pensions for veterans. It is obvious that there must be quarrels inside the cabinet as to how high the increase should be and whether or not the cabinet should accept the report of the committee which suggested that the escalation should be on the basis of the cost of living. I have not made the calculation but I am certain that $200 million out of this $500 million could give the disabled veterans the kind of pension that would enable them to live in the dignity which their service warrants. We are also waiting with baited breath for legislation that will increase the family allowance to an average of $20 per child. It took months and months to decide to do this. With
2644&-10

June 13, 1973
Income Tax Act (No. 2)
$300 million out of this $500 million we could make family allowances of $30 per child.
When on February 19 of this year the minister gave an income tax cut to individual taxpayers on a progressive basis-and we were delighted with the fact that it was progressive-he made the minimum $100. As I calculate it, Mr. Speaker, another $300 million or $400 million would enable him to give a minimum of $150 in the personal income tax cut.
It is for these reasons, because we cannot see any validity in the economic arguments presented by the minister and because we believe it is socially wrong and unjust to give the corporations further concessions, that we will oppose this bill on second reading and throughout all its stages.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is the result, we all know, of pre-election measures, proposed as long ago as 1972 by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), though of course the October 30 election results had not been foreseen then.
Since that time the minister has been beating about the bush in an attempt to rally the Progressive Conservatives to his side, since he is sure of the very clear stand that has always been taken by our friends in the New Democratic Party. I can understand that the minister found himself in a dilemma, and his evasiveness this afternoon shows that we are now witnessing a three-way family fight, between the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservatives, and perhaps this session will pass into history as the one during which we were constantly involved in the old eternal triangle.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, we are not concerned with such petty matters, for if the Progressive Conservatives go back to the untenable position which they adopted at the beginning of the session, it will be proof of a rather flagrant lack of responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, early in this session the Progressive Conservatives had but one concern, and that was to defeat the government. And when faced with a measure which normally would have received their full support, they thought it wise to say that they were going to oppose it, which, of course, bothered the government, but it also bothered the Progressive Conservative party. In view of all that has been going on in this House for the past few months, in my opinion we are still the freest since we are not tied down in any way and can express in the freest possible manner what people think, what they dearly want, and we therefore wish to encourage the government to consider the very constructive and positive criticisms we have made.
Once again, in his speech, the minister explained his purpose in introducing this bill; by reducing corporate taxes he hopes to remedy the effects of three categories of problems: first, those caused by the devaluation and revaluation of the dollar, as well as by the increase in the value of foreign currencies; second, the problems caused by the need for our industries to compete with foreign production; and third, which may be his strongest argument, the need to create new jobs.

Mr. Speaker, we have always opposed an economic and financial system that leads to impossible situations. As our proposals are always turned down, we are forced to say whether we agree or not with proposals to be applied to what we consider to be an inadequate system.
We would like to be as optimistic as the minister and think that this bill will have all the positive effects he referred to but we know that is impossible in the current economic system. We are prepared to allow the government to give it a try, particularly since it guarantees us that the House will have certain prerogatives allowing it to ask almost anytime for the suspension of that law if it proved inefficient.
But, Mr. Speaker, in spite of all that we insist on restating the necessary points. In his first point the minister said that tax reductions can favour competition. Mr. Speaker, when a country like ours builds its economy on 52 per cent of the value of goods manufactured for exportation, when the Canadian consumer buys around 70 to 80 per cent foreign products, this is a ridiculous situation.
How come we are compelled to base our production volume on exports, while as consumers we must rely on foreign products? There is something incomprehensible.
It is the same when we refer to exchange rates. When the common market countries or the United States decide to devaluate or revaluate their currency, we are affected.
If our entire economy is based on exports, it is then agreed that we lie at the mercy of anything which may happen throughout the world. This is why we suggest, as members of the Social Credit, that all those questions would be minor issues if we implemented an adequate economic system and if the concern of the government were truly the same as that of the Canadian people. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that all Canadians would like to manufacture here everything which can materially be produced. The only conditions are to have the necessary raw materials, sufficient manpower and of course the required talent, that is individuals capable of drawing up plans and carrying them out. This is necessary to manufacture any item.
Now, if we were to apply this simple principle of making financially possible what is physically feasible, we could not only settle our economic and financial problems but also create employment because if we buy abroad the best part of our consumer goods, it is obvious that in the meantime we shall keep a countless number of workers on our unemployment roll. This is self-explanatory.
But if we were to apply logical and sound economic principles, we would never be faced with those problems since production cost would not matter. If we are physically in a position to manufacture such or such kind of products-and I know that in Canada we can produce just about anything-it would then be sufficient to balance the value of this production with the purchasing power of people. There would never be any inflation since the value of the money representing the purchasing power would be equal to the products that would exist. Therefore, such a system would never breed inflation. A system of that kind is extremely simple.
But as I repeated on many occasions, the simplest things are sometimes the most difficult to explain. And this is a problem especially for us, Creditistes, who must try to
June 13, 1973

make people understand very simple things that they will not admit at all.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we certainly have reservations about this bill, considering it applies to the present economic system. Of course, as a matter of principle we believe precisely that taxes should be reduced to their simplest form. As a matter of principle, I repeat, we are against tax increases and we are also, as a matter of principle, in favour of tax reductions. Since the bill deals with a tax reduction, as a matter of principle, we perfectly agree with that.
But we are reluctant to believe that this measures will have all the results hoped for. Why? Because this is not the first time a reduction has been suggested. There was one in 1971 and others before that. What were the results of corporate tax cuts? As far as I know, the unemployment rate increased last year. That is why we entertain some reservations as regards the effects this bill could have, even though, in principle, we are in favour of lessening the corporate financial burden.
In spite of negative critics, we want to emphasize the positive aspect which could be considered. I mentioned earlier a principle which our party would like to see implemented, namely that of making financially possible what is physically feasible.
If we want to settle once and for all the persistent problem of inflation, unemployment and production, in brief if we truly want to find adequate solutions, we should, for example, consider the best way to helping the corporations affected by this bill. Shall we succeed in solving this problem by granting corporations more substantial tax reliefs or should we subsidize them as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is doing? No, Mr. Speaker, because it might be difficult to do justice to everybody if we were to allow a substantial tax cut for a few companies.
We know that it may be quite easy to hide a large part of net income; thus, the tax returns of companies cannot be trusted sometimes. There might be-I do not suggest that this will necessarily happen-some injustice but this would not create any problem if the Canadian taxpayer were not called upon to promote the expansion of a company thanks to his own money, either through a tax cut, as provided for in this bill, or through grants. In both cases, we must remind ourselves that personal income tax represent 80 per cent of over-all taxes, Mr. Speaker. The people pay for it, they will have to pay for it, either through income tax or through taxes of all kinds. And when grants are given, the same thing happens: taxpayers are again expected to pick up the tab.
If the principle were applied that any new production can and must be financed through new credit, the problem would be solved because, if a business needs to be assisted, the most basic assistance it would need would be credit, and if credit was facilitated, the company involved would be responsible for the value of its loan. Thus, the taxpayer would not be directly obliged to help it.
I suggest that this would be much more logical and besides, a business should have the opportunity of choosing between two means I am going to point out right now.
Income Tax Act (No. 2)
Let us take the example of a small business which needs $100,000. It will apply for a grant from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. The department grants a maximum of $25,000. Where to get the remaining $75,000, Mr. Speaker? Of course, there is the money market where it is possible to borrow at 93A, 10 or 11 per cent and maybe more. Because of the increase in the Bank of Canada interest rate as announced this week, we can expect one every bank to follow suit. At that time, the businessman must make a choice between-and this is my assumption-taking the $25,000 from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and get the $75,000 he needs at an interest rate of 12 per cent. What happens? A recurrence of what happened since that policy was adopted, and a good deal of business receiving grants are going bankrupt. Why? Because they cannot even finance the cost of their loan.
Let us now look at the other alternative. If instead of giving a grant of $25,000 and having the rest financed at 12 per cent, the loan covers the $100,000 that is needed by that business but at an interest rate of 2 or 3 per cent plus cost of the loan itself, what will the industrialist do? We know the answer. Instead of the grant of $25,000 and the loan at 12 per cent, he will prefer to have the total credit of $100,000 at an interest rate which will allow him to expand his business, increase the number of products, create a lot of jobs and give consumers in general a greater purchasing power to buy his products. That is the way to spin the wheel as it should be and as it should have always been.
I think that rather than tax exemptions we should be considering the possibility of facilitating access to credit on the basis of the principle that it is absolutely normal that new productions be financed through new credits.
There is also another very positive way which goes against what was proposed by the minister when he said that those tax exemptions are aimed at making it easier for foreign competition. If only someone would accept the proposition that it is not necessary, not useful and sometimes ridiculous to base our whole way of life, our whole economic system, on foreigners! It is not rational, particularly in a rich country like Canada. There is another way, Mr. Speaker, and it is through a compensated discount. When we cannot manufacture some products in Canada, the reason is not that we are short of raw materials, manpower or know-how, but simply that some other country can produce them at lower cost. It is foolish to yield to those circumstances and let our industries die because of that.
Take industries such as textiles in Quebec which have to close down or considerably reduce their production only because we are invaded by textile products from Japan, China or other countries. Mr. Speaker, it is ridiculous when we know that they are one of our most important industries. It is possible to cope with that situation simply by giving a compensated discount which could be used to compete with foreign countries and God knows that those countries can do the same in other ways.
I for one have serious doubts when buying a foreign product as to whether it was cheaper to manufacture. I find it hard to believe that, Mr. Speaker, especially when we know that in Quebec particularly wages are not so high and they are much lower than those paid in the United
26446-10*

June 13, 1973
Income Tax Act (No. 2)
States. It is difficult for me to admit that the United States for instance can make a product at lower cost than in Quebec; that is not always the truth.
Moreover, we are not there to control their production and the policy of their government. So we have only one thing to do; mind our own business. We should be able to control all foreign products; we know what we can produce ourselves and as regards products which would be more expensive-yet essential-we would only have to give the consumer a compensated discount for interested producers.
Mr. Speaker, when we consider the whole problem of tax cuts, we are faced with the problem of the economy as a whole. We hear over and over again that inflation is the cause of all of that.
At a given time, unemployment increases because of the fight against inflation. Another time, if the government reduces its budgetary expenses, it is again because of inflation, and if there is some change in the exchange rate, it is again because of inflation.
I have before me an article from issues 3 and 4 of the periodical Le reveil du consommateur, dealing with inflation, and I think it should be quoted, so that once and for all people will stop being afraid of words which can mean almost anything. I shall quote from this article later on.
People are told to tighten their belt because of inflation. I am sure that the farmer at the back of beyond does not understand anything because he sees his carrots and his trees growing and his cows giving milk as usual. He does not understand that because of inflation, he should have to tighten his belt.
I will read from the article I mentioned earlier, by Mr. Normand Brouillet, and I quote:
Does inflation serve the workers' interests? After this brief review of the origins and causes of the persistent inflation which characterizes our economy, after finding that to a certain extent governments have to choose between a reasonable inflation rate and high unemployment on the one hand, or a faster rate of increase in prices with less unemployment, which causes demand to rise or decline, it remains to be determined which economical situation is less detrimental to the workers. In the present situation, we believe that inflation is mainly a reflection of the framework within which workers and management are fighting to grab the largest possible share of national revenue. We believe that inflation is more beneficial to the workers' interests than severe unemployment. First, because unemployed have no real purchasing power in a society such as ours. They are isolated and have no possibility of exploiting their only economical force, namely their work capacity.
This is similar to what we say when we promote anything which might increase the individual's purchasing power and we are not afraid of inflation; as evidence of it I am continuing the quotation:
Thus, inflation makes it possible, not only for employed workers to continue improving their standard of living, but for an even larger number of workers (since the unemployment rate is generally lower in periods of inflation) to benefit by the growth in the national economy.
Mr. Speaker, to conclude, I shall now quote an extract from the same publication, which is taken from a book entitled "Les consequences de l'inflation: mythes et rea-

lites" (the consequences of inflation: myth and reality) bv M. J. Depatie:
In short, inflation does not seem to us to be as disastrous for all workers as we are too often asked to believe. For indeed, those who lose the most are those who have lent money, who see the absolute value of their loans decreasing. Now in our system the lenders are the banks, the trust companies, the finance companies, and so on .. . They are those who have an interest in seeing that inflation is kept a minimum. Basically, it is for the benefit of this minority that the government combats inflation so vigorously, since even the production sector can adjust to cost hikes by corresponding price hikes.
Mr. Speaker, the time has come for us to say a few elementary truths of which we are aware, as everyone else is; certain rumors are kept alive which circulate among the people and get on their nerves. That is why unemployment was finally accepted, and all sorts of inefficient measure justified.
For instance, when we ask why old age pensions are not paid people of 60, we are told it would cost a billion dollars to do so. And what of it considering the potential of this country to produce goods worth hundreds of billions? Why not place a billion dollars' worth more purchasing power in the people's hands?
Mr. Speaker, the time has come to set up real priorities in the field of economics and, in closing, I would like to express my agreement with the Minister of Finances when he says that corporate tax reductions will encourage the creation of new jobs and produce all sorts of good things for the country. I am willing to accept that, and I hope it comes true. That is why I am not against Bill C-192, though I know full well that it will not solve any of the fundamental problems we have to face. To remedy the situation, sound and logical economic principles, such as we propose, should be applied.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, this bill has been a long time coming to this stage, much too long for the business community. It was rather interesting watching the cat-and-mouse game the government played with this bill. In almost every weekly edition of certain financial papers there were references to the tax bill; it was coming, it was not coming, there was a division in the cabinet, we would have it next week or next month. We finally have it in a somewhat modified form.
The government has kept those in the business community who will benefit from this bill in a state of anticipation. Some whom I have talked to felt at one stage that the bill would be withdrawn. Others thought it was buried so far down the legislative list it would never reach parliament. I more or less made the same prediction. I had reservations about the way it was being handled. I did not know whether the minister was really serious when he talked about the effect it would have and the help it would give to industry.
There was so much rhetoric on the bill before it was introduced that a great number of Canadian businessmen are convinced they are going to receive a tax cut. I am not referring to manufacturers or processors. I talked to a number of these businessmen in my constituency and other areas. They are of the opinion they will get a tax cut even though they are not manufacturers or distributors. The truth is that most Canadian businesses other than

manufacturers or distributors will receive a tax increase. That is one of the faults of this bill.
Looking at the rate of inflation and the increase in the bank rate, I wonder how effective the tax reduction will be, in real terms, to industry. The minister said he is concerned about the financial status of Canadian industry. I find that a bit hard to swallow. If he had been really concerned, this bill would have been introduced in 1972 or at least a couple of months ago.
Why did we have to wait until three weeks ago to receive the analysis on the full impact of the DISC legislation from the Canadian Tax Foundation? It is rather significant that we had to wait this period of time. DISC has been in operation for 18 or 24 months. I believe this analysis was prepared by the Canadian Tax Foundation and sent in by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. The minister said today that this is one of the great cornerstones in the bill to reduce the corporate tax rate.
The minister stated that the long-term effects of DISC will be disastrous to Canadian industry. However, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) said in committee that he does not know of any Canadian industry that has been injured as a result of the DISC legislation. It is rather difficult to reconcile those two statements. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) based much of his argument on the DISC legislation. If the Minister of Finance is so concerned about our primary and secondary industries, why is he allowing the bank rate to escalate? Why does he not put a check on inflation so that the real effect of the tax cut can be utilized by industries, particularly those involved in export?
We seem to be dealing in half measures. I would like to hear the minister say we are going to have a tax rate equal to the lowest effective tax rate of any industrialized nation in our trading sphere. In other words, I would like to hear him say that we will be competitive with any nation of the world on matters of tax as far as our industry is concerned. If the minister brought forward a broad tax philosophy like that, people would be very pleased provided it was across the board and covered all industries, not only manufacturers and processors.
The minister does not seem to have any concern for the transportation industry. These people are not going to benefit from the tax cuts. As a matter of fact, in most cases they will have a tax increase. Here is an industry that is so vital to the economy, yet no relief is given to it.
As a matter of fact, the truck transportation industry, the "for hire" industry, is in a very serious position this year. Most truckers compete with the railways and they are now facing a situation where taxation has increased, fuel prices are going up, and they are caught in the inflationary spiral. It appears that the railways are considering some form of subsidy this year, which means that the transportation industry will raise freight rates, the cost of which will be passed on to manufacturing industry. So where will we go from there? The whole situation makes the tax reduction somewhat non-effective.
I am also concerned about the position of the service industry. The American service industry is included within the DISC legislation. Some U.S. consulting firms
Income Tax Act (No. 2)
and engineering companies are bidding in Canada in competition with Canadian companies, using the benefits of the DISC legislation to the detriment of Canadian corporations in the same field. Yet no concern is shown for these corporations which form a vital part of our industrial complex.
The special write-off provisions and depreciation features are good and in general we agree with them. The big problem facing our industry as time goes on, once the back of unemployment is broken, is the productivity of industry vis-a-vis world trade. We have to be ever mindful of productivity and must have available legislation which sees to it that industry has the necessary machinery to remain productive. Other countries, such as Germany, Japan and the United States and most of the western European nations have had features like this in their business law for many years, certainly since the last war. I hope that after the two-year period has expired we will re-examine the situation and reintroduce these provisions.
The definition in the bill of "manufacturing and processing" has caused a good deal of concern to many of us. Today I received a copy of a document headed "Proposed income tax regulation, manufacturing and processing profits". It is rather interesting to note the document is dated December 28, 1972, and was released on Friday, January 8, 1973. In this document are some horrendous definitions of business activities, to say nothing of complicated formulae which I have shown to a couple of chartered accountants who told me they could not figure them out and would have to take a real, long look at them.
One matter we must look at very seriously is this: we must realize many of our industries are engaged in manufacturing, service and retail and it will be very difficult to segregate these industries for the purpose of taxation. It would have been much easier to apply this legislation across the board to all Canadian industries and companies.
A very interesting article appeared in yesterday's Ottawa Journal about the service business. I should like to quote a few extracts:
Service business is big business.
Over the next decade, three out of every four jobs created will be in the service industries. . . . service workers will outnumber employees in manufacturing and natural resources industries by better than two to one.
Within the service area itself, the rapidly rising demand for utilities, transportation and communication services far outstrips growth for other private and public services.
Lagging productivity in services is the principal factor triggering inflationary spending increases. In many service occupations it creates insatiable manpower demands which the consumer pays through rapidly rising prices.
Companies originally devoted to retailing have integrated backward into manufacturing and a large national retailer in Canada now offers a repair department as well as financial counselling, selling life insurance and mutual funds.
So there will be some very difficult divisions to be made in some of these industries. I can think of several large nationally-known industries producing brand name products who have manufacturing service and retail segments within their businesses. How the proposed formula will sort them out is beyond me, and I shall be interested to hear a little more detail in this regard. What I am fright-

June 13, 1973
Income Tax Act (No. 2)
ened of is another section or empire being spawned in the Department of Finance as a result of this bill, with a group of experts and people running around the country trying to figure out for the manufacturer which slot he should drop into.
Generally speaking, I think we are going to vote to send this bill to committee. However, in committee we will want to carefully examine the review process mechanism and see it tightened up. I think it is fair to say that on that particular point we will take a hard line. I think the minister has been put on notice that when the bill goes to committee we are going to lay hard on this review process and see that some real meaning is given to it. That is something to which we will be looking forward.
I think the definitions relating to manufacturing and processing are going to drive the average businessman of the kind I know in small industries and secondary industries, right up the wall. Let me just illustrate to the House what I mean. According to the document I have referred to-
The manufacturing and processing profits of such a corporation for a taxation year will be that proportion of its Canadian active business income for the year which its manufacturing labour plus manufacturing capital is of its total labour plus total capital for the year.
After you have swallowed that, Mr. Speaker, you are given a formula which expresses the foregoing as MP- which is "manufacturing profit" equals ML MC over TL TC h- ABI. If we thought Bill C-259 had problems, I think when the business community takes issue with this one the minister will see some backlash he has not anticipated. When we get into committee we can talk to the figure filberts and the other philosophers who put this formula together and defined the various categories of manufacturing and pricing to see whether we can get them defined in terms that every businessman who is struggling for the buck in a competitive market can understand.
There is disappointment that the minister has chosen to favour only one segment of the business community of this country. I do not know how we can talk about an industrial strategy unless we consider all industries in our business community. It is not fair to leave out the service industry, the transportation industry, the consulting engineers and others in our business community, including large retail merchants. It is not fair that they should be exempted from these tax reduction provisions. I would suggest to the minister that if in his wisdom he had seen fit to include the business community across the board in this tax legislation, it might well have been in operation months ago. I do not think there would have been any holding back or waiting for the proper time to introduce it, just before a parliamentary recess.
Let me say in closing that we are going to vote for this bill on second reading so that we can take a long look at it in committee. We are going to chew hard at the review procedure and lean pretty heavily on tightening it up, because we think it needs tightening up. The minister has been given notice that we are going to consider the formula we see here and try to get some of the language put

on a level where the guy who makes the buck can understand what he is contributing;.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to comment on the remarks of the leader of the NDP (Mr. Lewis). I noted that he seemed quite disturbed about his presumption that the party to which I belong was going to support this bill on second reading in order that it be sent to the committee. He said that the monitoring process which had been suggested by the minister was in fact not realistic and would not be objective. He said monitoring is worth nothing. He said the way you write up the facts sets the tone; the way you set up the game sets the tone. In short, he said there would be no objectivity in the minister's monitoring because they propose to monitor the force of the manufacturing and processing companies themselves. He also said that we cannot trust a review carried out by the ministry itself.
Perhaps the leader of that party is missing the fundamental fact that at some point in a confrontation or debate it is wrong to hit a man when he is down. When we consider the history of this matter we find that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) started out very confidently on May 8, 1972. He was less confident in February, 1973, and I believe he has virtually conceded his position as of now. If he feels, because of his current attitude and misgivings concerning the actual effect of his tax measures, that the government now needs a monitoring system, this parliament should at least co-operate to the extent of letting him off the hook so that the monitoring system he proposes to set up will be meaningful.
I think we must remember the statements of the Minister of Finance concerning the proposed tax legislation when he introduced this measure on May 8, 1972. He said one of the purposes was to-
-protect existing jobs and provide well-paying new jobs for Canadians in and near the urban centres where they want to work.
Subsequently, I asked the minister questions when he appeared before the committee of this House and found that he was very much less explicit as to what, in fact, they anticipated to be the job-creation impact of these tax measures. I asked this direct question:
How many jobs do you feel you can attribute directly to the proposed tax reduction and to the fast write-off?
The minister replied:
That is impossible to calculate.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, this minister has repeatedly told the press, the people of Canada and the members of this House that he knows his tax measures are going to have a job-creation effect. When he is asked to be specific, he tells us it is impossible to calculate that effect. I suggest that means the minister and the cabinet are now having serious doubts and concerns about the real impact of these tax measures. I have in mind that question as to how many businesses in Canada will be affected by this rather vague term "manufacturing and processing". I should like to know what businesses in Canada will be affected. Again, when questioned in the committee the minister and his deputies were unable to come up with any specific calculations as to the number of businesses in Canada which would actually benefit from these tax measures.

I found it very alarming that the minister was unable to come up with any specific figure as to the extent foreign-controlled corporations in Canada would benefit from the tax measures. This is something members of this House should not overlook. The minister has made representations in the House that this is going to be beneficial to processing and manufacturing concerns in the country and that it will have the direct advantage of creating jobs, yet when he is pinned down to giving specifics he can only reply that it is impossible to be specific on the subject.
I suggest that when he throws out the figure, as he did on May 8, 1972, of $500 million in a full year as the amount the government will forgo in revenue, we cannot rely on that figure. He admitted specifically in the committee that he himself did not know. How can he be sure, even using the word "about", that the government will forgo $500 million in respect of this tax measure?
The fact is that the government, for its own good reasons, on May 8, 1972, made the decision to introduce the tax measures which are finally before us today. I believe the government now has serious doubts as to whether it took the proper course, but it feels it has no alternative, for face-saving purposes-call it what you want-but to persist in its adamant stand that in some form these tax measures must proceed through this House.
That is why I feel it is important to first comment on the speech made by the Leader of the New Democratic Party because, like us, he is disturbed about the proposed operation of the monitoring authority. We have our doubts. We believe that the proper thing, however, is to at least give the bill second reading and allow it to pass to the committee, where we will ask some hard questions which we will want answered in a more direct and factual way than the way in which the minister has answered questions put to him to the present time in the committee concerning the impact of these tax measures.
Another point raised by our colleague the leader of the NDP was the question of what he calls a rip-off or sell-out to business. I think it is odd that he did not make clear, or at least I did not get it from his remarks, that the tax measure introduced by the Minister of Finance actually increases taxation for most businessmen in this country. This is one of the fundamental fallacies in the tax approach of the Minister of Finance. He is showing favouritism within the business community without being able to demonstrate to this House, to the economists or to the people of Canada, that his favouritism in the form of tax reductions and fast write-offs in respect of the manufacturing and processing fields will actually produce results in accordance with any foregone target or objective.
With regard to whether in fact the bulk of the Canadian businessmen will be paying higher taxes, this question was answered by the Minister of Finance, again at the committee hearings to which I referred, but only after extremely hard questioning. He took every opportunity to avoid admitting that most businesses in Canada will not be paying less taxation in the current year, 1973, but will be paying more. I am pleased to tell members that after about 24 questions having been put to him in which he tried to evade the question, he finally gave the answer.
Income Tax Act (No. 2)
I asked the minister what rate would be paid in 1973 by businesses other than in the manufacturing and processing fields, and he said that it would be 49 per cent. I then said that such a person would pay 49 per cent and last year he paid 46.5 per cent. The minister finally agreed. He said that last year it was 46.5 per cent. Surely this type of deceit is not expected from the Minister of Finance in a country such as Canada. I suggest that this is something which should have been pointed out by the leader of the NDP instead of the broad-brush approach which he likes to take in respect of the big corporations by saying they are getting some type of tax concession. Surely it would have been much more direct for him to have pointed out that a segment of the business community is getting a concession, but that some businessmen in 1973 are actually being called upon to pay more in taxation than they did last year.
Having said that, I believe it would not be wise on our part to oppose the bill, certainly at second reading stage. If the government is having serious doubts, and I suggest it is, concerning the actual effect of this tax measure, it is natural it should want to have a monitoring system, and I believe it is the job of this House to ensure that the monitoring system that is set up will be objective and will get to the facts. I also suggest that if it is objective and gets to the facts, it will prove what my leader and members of this party have said for some time, that this is an unsatisfactory measure to have been brought in at this time in this country.
I believe the minister has made a significant concession. Let us look at the history. In May, 1972, there was no suggestion of any monitoring at all. I sat in this House on February 19, 1973, and remember many members chuckling and laughing when the minister started down the path of looking squarely at the NDP and saying he had now decided to have a monitoring system in order, presumably, to satisfy somebody that these measures will have the proper effect. Not too long ago we sat in this House and heard the final concession, that not only would there be a monitoring system but there would also be an interim report giving us an opportunity, under the new legislation, to challenge the continuation of the existence of this tax if 60 members or more of this House saw fit. How far can one expect a man to go without actually conceding he was wrong on May 8?
I say it is wrong for us to keep pounding on this issue when the government realizes it has made a mistake. Rather than making so much of the fact that it is not 30 members who would bring in this resolution but 60, I think the NDP should have made the point that according to the facts which are before not only this House but the public, it may well be that if the present government is in power in April next year it will be the first to move to get this type of taxation provision out of our system and not allow it to continue. That point perhaps has been overlooked in this debate. People like to save face. This government is particularly anxious to remain in power, and if it is to remain in power it will obviously want to save face on this issue.

June 13, 1973
Income Tax Act (No. 2)
I say that if the members of the NDP are sincere, as they have so often stated, and would like to see parliament continue, it is rather odd that they will not allow the Minister of Finance, who feels he has made a mistake, to at least save a little face.
I see it is almost six o'clock, Mr. Speaker. May I call it six o'clock?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock.
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, June 14, 1973