1975-02-21

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to introduce a motion under Standing Order 43 concerning a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The government has announced its plans for the completion in stages of the Pickering Airport. At no time has there been shown to be any need for this airport. The City of Toronto, through its Council, has clearly indicated its view that there is no need for the new airport. The Pickering impact study shows that the project would raise grave problems of traffic within the whole metropolitan area and that the estimates of cost given so far do not take into account some of the major ancilliary aspects-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent):
That this House instruct the Minister of Transport to discontinue forthwith any plans to complete the airport or, in the alternative, resign from the ministry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the proposed motion. Since it is put forward under the terms of Standing Order 43 it cannot be debated in the absence of unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the terms of Standing Order 43 to request unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on an extremely urgent matter which needs immediate consideration from this House.
Considering that most highway accidents are due to drivers under the influence of alcohol, that present legislation is not hard enough to dissuade people from driving in a state of inebriety, and that it is urgent to do something in order that drunk people be scared enough by legal reprisals not to take the wheel, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs be instructed to study the possibility of amending the Criminal Code to incorporate severe measures likely to dissuade people under the influence of alcohol from driving a car.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under the terms of Standing Order 43, the motion requires unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is no unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.


PROPOSED INQUIRY INTO HEALTH HAZARD OF ASBESTOS- REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask unanimous consent to put a motion of urgent and pressing necessity dealing with the extreme health hazard related to the asbestos mining industry. While the provincial government of Ontario has taken steps to alleviate the problem, the industry in Quebec still exposes miners to extremely unsafe working conditions. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan):
That the minister of health-
-whom I am glad to see back in the House after a long absence-
-initiate an immediate inquiry into this matter and report the findings, along with recommendations for solutions to this House upon completion of the inquiry.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the terms of the motion now being proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43. It cannot be debated without unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?

February 21, 1975
Pickering Airport


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 to raise a question of urgent necessity respecting the Pickering airport announcement of yesterday. The decision that was made yesterday follows two years and 21 days after the original date of confirmation of expropriation which set the values for the property involved. I consider it a matter of very grave urgency that something be done in respect to this, in light of the fact that the government, through the previous Minister of Public Works, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) and others, made statements indicating that that property would not necessarily be needed and that a final decision would be made after the airport inquiry.
Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Fleming):
That in respect to the Pickering airport properties, this House instruct the Minister of Public Works to take whatever action is necessary to advance the valuation date for those in occupation at the time of the original notice of confirmation to the date that such persons replaced their properties, or the date the Crown takes physical possession of such properties, whichever is the earlier, as one step in assuring that expropriated persons are provided with reasonably equivalent premises to replace those which have been taken from them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the terms of the motion. It being proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43, it cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PICKERING-SUGGESTED CHANGE IN NAME OF TORONTO INTERNATIONAL TERMINAL 2-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to place a motion before the House under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of significant and immediate necessity, namely the importance of saving our quality of life and our tax dollars, and as well, saving the face of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand). Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens):
That this House respectfully advises the government to resolve at least one outstanding mess in our national transportation policy by simply changing the name of Terminal 2 at the Toronto International Airport to the Pickering International Airport.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have already twice indicated the acceptability of the general subject of the Pickering airport but certainly this motion has a different slant. The motion being proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43, it

cannot be debated without unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the Trans-Canada highway at Rogers Pass is closed indefinitely as a result of this government's failure in its labour relations with its own employees, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen):
That this government take such emergency measures as are necessary to re-open the Trans-Canada Highway and to ease the emergency situation building up at Golden, B.C., and in the national parks of western Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion being proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43, it requires the unanimous consent of the House for debate. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity to all Canada, and I would urge the unanimous consent of this House.
I have filed this morning with the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) a list of 77 communities in the Churchill riding which will not be receiving old age pension cheques this month because of the postal strike. I would move, therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp):
That the Postmaster General deliver the said cheques to my office and provide the services of one of the government's Jet Stars to see that the needy people of my riding receive their cheques on time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion has been proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 and requires the unanimous consent of the House to be debated. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
February 21, 1975



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, under Article 43 of the Standing Orders, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, highlighted by discussions in this House in the last few days and the response of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mcl-saac) in the adjournment debate of last evening, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane):
That this House, without debate, express its opinion that employer and employee representatives of Crown corporations be treated equally when called to appear before the Canada Labour Relations Board and specifically that employees subpoenaed to appear before the board not be penalized by loss of salary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I presume the urgency of the matter must be reflected in the reference in the first part of the motion to remarks made during the adjournment debate last evening. Therefore, I would put the question to the House in respect of unanimous consent. The motion being proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43, it cannot be debated without unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Motions.


Mr. Fairweather:: Nobody said no.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Was there in fact unanimous consent?


Mr. Speaker:: I thought I heard a contrary voice. I will put the question again. The motion being proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43, it cannot be debated without unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order which is more of a technical point. I believe the parliamentary secretary who answered last night was not the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mclsaac). The hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) is the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There being unanimous consent, is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain):: That is the sort of thing that wouldn't happen if Mitchell Sharp were alive.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the minister's statement yesterday that the estimated cost of land and construction of the proposed Pickering International airport would be $204 million, would the minister indicate if his department has estimated the cost of the completed airport, to which he refers as "other options", and, secondly, would he indicate what is the estimate cost of the infracture that will be required to build Pickering, that is the sewage, the water, the road system, etc., and who will be paying?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, there would be a lot of figures but I can supply them. I will ask the department to give them to the hon. member.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of the comment of the Minister of Transport that there would be a lot of figures and the Prime Minister's comment in Montreal yesterday that soon it will not be possible to give an airport to a municipality, would the Prime Minister indicate whether the cabinet gave any serious consideration to diverting the funds earmarked for the Pickering airport project through the province of Ontario to the municipalities in the Toronto centred region to aid them in building their sewage treatment facilities, their water treatment facilities, their Go train extensions, their roadways and their subways with a view to helping commuters in that region and to help bring down the prices of houses in that area, instead of spending the hundreds of millions of dollars as is proposed at Pickering?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: All these considerations have been taken into account in arriving at the decision.


AIRPORTS
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I should like to direct my supplementary again to the Minister of Trans-

Oral Questions
port. In view of the government's decision not to accept the Gibson report recommendation with respect to those who live in areas such as Stouffville, and in view of the minister's statement that the government anticipated that the noise level in areas such as Stouffville will not create a disturbance with respect to the residents of that area, would the minister indicate what type of guarantee his department intends to give to those residents who will not be compensated now but may be subjected to noise that they in fact will not have to endure the noise levels that the Gibson report anticipated if the airport were developed?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the Gibson report gives a certain number of solutions to that problem. I do not know which one will be chosen by those who are interested. If some people are really annoyed by the noise, we are ready to buy their property.


An hon. Member:: This is not what you said yesterday.


Jean Marchand: This is what I said yesterday. The hon. member should read my statement again, and he will see that this is what I said. Of course, if those people wanted to move because of the noise level, we will not expropriate them but voluntarily buy their property.
So far as the cost of the airport and the kind of distribution the hon. member proposes are concerned, if he knew the law or the administration he would not have put this question because there is a special fund for airports which is self-sufficient for Toronto, Montreal and Pickering.


PICKERING-SMALL INCREASE IN PASSENGER TRAFFIC MIGHT NOT CAUSE CONGESTION AT MALTON
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which I would like to direct also to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact the minister has stated that, considering the present growth in air travel, Malton would be seriously congested and therefore other airport facilities are necessary, would he indicate to the House whether or not he is aware of the fact that the International Civil Aviation Organization's annual year-end estimates of scheduled air traffic in 1974 showed that the year's rate of growth for total traffic was the lowest since 1958, and that the volume of passengers registered the lowest increase ever recorded in the industry, and could he tell us something that ICAO does not know as yet?


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of that fact. I think that the whole world is aware of the fact that there was an oil crisis that year and that it had an impact on all modes of transportation.


PICKERING-REQUEST FOR TABLING REPORTS ON WHICH DECISION TO CONSTRUCT BASED
Otto John Jelinek: In view of the fact that the federal government has spent millions of dollars on inquiries and consultations regarding the proposal for a second international airport for the Toronto

area, and because each of these reports recommended that a large, international airport be built, but now, instead, a whole community will be affected and disrupted for one runway only, which is like being half pregnant without ever really wanting to be, could the government now table the reports and recommendations which constitute the basis of its decision, a decision contrary to both the costly recommendations of the inquiry and the majority of the people in the Toronto area?


Jean Marchand: If the
hon. gentleman can bring some kind of evidence to show that the majority of the population is against the airport, I am ready to revise the whole thing.


PICKERING-IF DECISION TO CONSTRUCT BASED ON OVER ALL TRANSPORTATION PLAN, REQUEST FOR DETAILS OF PLAN
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, the minister may well live to regret that statement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I should like to ask the minister a question based on what is contained on page 4 of the statement which he tabled in the House yesterday. He spoke-and I am sure there was no humour intended- with reference to what he described as his "over-all transportation policy." I would like to ask him with reference to that over-all transportation policy in which he makes subsequent references to STOL aircraft, high speed trains, and so on, all of which he thought should be put in the context of a serious plan, if the decision for the Pickering airport was made in the light of such a plan? If so, when is he going to outline the details of the plan to the House? If it was not made in the context of a plan which has already been established, when will such a plan be established and provided to hon. members of the House?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we have quite a large budget to operate airports throughout Canada. Some airports are being built now. Is it the suggestion of the hon. gentleman that we should stop everything which is being done now in the field of transportation in Canada because we are preparing an over-all plan?


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister a serious question. Does the department have a plan-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Would hon. members on the backbenches on the other side kindly shut up until the question is put.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Would the minister inform the House, yes or no, whether there is in existence a national transportation plan which includes as part of its makeup a plan for airport development across Canada? Is there a plan or is there not? If there is not, when can we expect one? It is a pretty straightforward question.
February 21, 1975


Jean Marchand: This question of Pickering airport-because this is the one the hon. member is referring to-has been discussed since 1968, more than seven years. There was an inquiry presided over by Mr. Justice Gibson, and it was agreed that at this moment we need something in order to avoid a real mess in the Malton region in a few years. This is what we are attempting to take care of with just one runway, and we will see in these two years what will happen. If we have to go further, we will go further. If we do not need to go further, we will be happy to stop there. So, it is not necessarily integrated into the plan, because at that time there was no general plan for the development of an airport.


John Edward Broadbent: Is there one now?


Jean Marchand: Yes there is.


An hon. Member:: Where is it?


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, at the end of his answer the minister said that there was a plan. Would he either, in the form of making a statement on motions or in some other form in the next few days, provide that plan and outline it to members of the House?


MALTON-REQUEST FOR RAPID INTRODUCTION OF NOISE ABATEMENT DEVICES
John Edward Broadbent: My last question is with reference to the people now in the Malton area. Would the minister assure us that his department would take the most rapid steps to introduce all the noise abatement devices possible as quickly as possible so the noise effects for the people in the Malton area in the coming two years in particular will be reduced?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what we are doing. We are rapidly building this one runway at Pickering to avoid an increase in the noise level at Malton. We know that aircraft movements are going to increase considerably in coming years and we want to be in a position to prevent an increase in the noise level. We are taking care of this problem, and I do not know why the hon. member complained.


PICKERING-SUGGESTED CONSTRUCTION OF THIRD TERMINAL AT TORONTO AS ALTERNATIVE
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is a supplementary for the Prime Minister. A study which was carried out within the Department of Transport and is well known in aeronautical circles shows clearly that a projected increase in air traffic at Toronto International Airport would be provided for if a third terminal were constructed as provided in the original plan. May I ask why the government is going ahead with an airport which the people of Toronto and vicinity do not want-


Some hon. Members:: Wrong!
Oral Questions


George Harris Hees: -which is completely unnecessary and a waste of hundreds of millions of dollars of the taxpayers money?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the report mentioned in the premise of the question.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Will the Prime Minister get that report and acquaint himself with its details and, if possible, stop this very foolish waste of money in which the government is participating?


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Further to the statements he made yesterday to the electors of his riding of Mount Royal, would he indicate to the House what main principle he finds anticonstitutional in Bill 22 and what his government intends to do about this act in view of the unrest it stirs in Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have never indicated that I find this bill anticonstitutional. On the contrary, I said that, to my mind, the bill is probably not ultra vires, though some parts of it could be challenged before the courts.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister.
In view of his answer, would the federal government give technical assistance with a view to proving that the bill might be ultra vires?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member obviously did not understand my reply. I said the contrary. I said that we do not think it is ultra vires.


POSSIBILITY OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO GROUPS CONTESTING CONSTITUTIONALITY OF BILL 22-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON INTERVENTION IN COURT PROCEEDINGS
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of what he just said, and in view of the fact that private groups in Montreal are bringing action with respect to the constitutionality of that bill which will eventually lead to the Supreme Court of Canada, would the Prime Minister advise whether it is the intention of the government to provide financial assistance to those groups in the prosecution of this section to the same extent as it was provided to the Indians at James Bay with respect to their rights in relation to that project?

February 21, 1975
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, any group which needed financial assistance to prosecute its case for justice in Canada might make application to the government. As far as I know the question is hypothetical.


Walter David Baker: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. On occasion the Prime Minister has said that it is the intention of the government to watch this kind of action very closely and to intervene where necessary. Could he inform the House whether in this case counsel would have merely a watching brief or would play an active part in the proceedings? What position would the government intend to ask its counsel to take at any hearing?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, no action having been taken before the courts up to now, the question is purely hypothetical.


AIRPORTS
Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. I would point out to him the discrepancy in the estimates tabled for the coming fiscal year which indicate that his department will spend $264,000 on an ad hoc advisory committee to study whether there should be expansion of the Mount Hope airport and also show a $500,000 allowance for the acquisition of land for the expansion of Mount Hope airport during the coming year. May I ask the minister if this means that the $264,000 ad hoc advisory committee is a fraud and an expensive one at that?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker, because I understand that all this was printed before we had the Gibson report.


An hon. Member:: It is a different airport.


Mr. O'Sullivan:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. To be fair to the minister I am referring to the Mount Hope airport in the city of Hamilton which has nothing to do with the Gibson report.


Jean Marchand: Oh, excuse me.


Sean Patrick O'Sullivan: Perhaps the minister would like to amend his answer.


Jean Marchand: You know what is happening in Hamilton and it is the same thing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Do you know?


George Harris Hees: You tell us what is happening there.


An hon. Member:: He doesn't know.


An hon. Member:: Where is Hamilton?


Jean Marchand: Of course, Mr. Speaker, when we decide at the request of the population to consult with all the organizations, then I wait until I have a report. That is all. I did not receive that report.


Mr. MacFarlane:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth is well aware of the price of that study which is in the estimates on the same page-$441,000. He received the report on the airport from me in person.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Where is the fraud?


Sean Patrick O'Sullivan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to return to the Minister of Transport, since it was to him that I posed the question. If I wanted an intervention from the minor league I would have indicated it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sean Patrick O'Sullivan: Now that we have established clearly, I hope, with the Minister of Transport that we are discussing the Hamilton Civic airport located at Mount Hope, Ontario, could the minister tell the House why it is that the estimates show a multithousand dollar expansion study on whether there should be an expansion and then $500,000 is allocated for expansion and land acquisition? It would seem that the decision has already been taken.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to put this kind of question. There is not doubt that, following the report, if nothing is done the money is not going to be spent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TRANSPORT
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport which is of equal importance to the people on the island of Grand Manan in the province of New Brunswick, which has nothing to do with millions or billions but has something to do with people who are isolated because of the sea. Given that the CTC has approved a 90 per cent fare increase to a federally subsidized ferry service will the minister recommend to the cabinet that such a drastic increase be deferred or that the federal subsidy be increased so that these isolated people will be saved from a very real hardship?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. gentleman knows whether an appeal was launched to the cabinet on this. I do not know but I can check. If there is no appeal, this is a decision of the CTC.
February 21, 1975


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, I have question for the right hon. Prime Minister. I must review the background of this question for him because of his inability to be present in the House yesterday.


An hon. Member:: Where is Bob today? He is not sick.


An hon. Member:: You are sick.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: It concerns a question I raised yesterday in the oral question period. I asked the Minister of Finance for information regarding finances, particularly in relation to bonds. As background, I stated:
In light of this fact, the minister is lending several millions of this money to Cuba through the Canadian International Development Agency at 3 per cent, so how does he justify the economics of taxing Canadians through making them pay high interest rates and then giving the money away to foreign countries?
The minister replied:
The second answer is that Cuba is not receiving that interest rate.
Namely, the 3 per cent figure I stated. Later in the day, at about half past four, during the opposition debate on CIDA-
Some hort. Members: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has indicated that the Prime Minister was absent. Hon. members know that absence was unavoidable. The hon. member indicated that, out of courtesy to the Prime Minister, he was reviewing the background. I hope he will be able to do it in a brief way. However, the hon. member ought to be given that chance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I am coming to the point, Mr. Speaker. I know the Prime Minister will co-operate with me. I stated he was unavoidably absent yesterday. We know that he is a busy man. During the CIDA debate yesterday, at about 4:45 I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and I quote:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Having listened to the minister's comments with interest and heard him speak about the Cuba loan, may I ask, what is the interest rate on this loan?
The minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, I have the press release here; it contains all the details. I will be happy to send it to the hon. member.
I have the press release here. The minister sent it over immediately. It reads as follows:
The Secretary of State for External Affairs-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if the hon. member would put the question.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: It states that the loan is for $10 million. I quote:
Oral Questions
The loan, to be financed by the Canadian International Development Agency over three years, carries interest at 3 per cent per annum and matures in 30 years.
My question is, will the Prime Minister explain to the House why there is such a difference of policy between these two cabinet ministers, and tell the Canadian people the truth regarding the rate of interest on this soft loan to communist Cuba.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I listened as attentively as I could. I see the difference in policy to which the hon. member is referring. After all, the facts are easily ascertainable. They are obviously contained in the press release. As to the policy, the government policy is well known. We have various forms of loans, soft and concessional, to various countries. The policy of the government was discussed by the House yesterday. I have nothing to add to that.


SARNIA-MONTREAL PIPELINE-REQUEST FOR DETAILS OF AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO WITH INTERPROVINCIAL PIPE LINE
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources regarding the proposed pipeline from Sarnia to Montreal. On January 17, the press reported the Prime Minister saying that the government is now willing to offer some type of guarantee to Interprovincial Pipe Line Limited. I wish to ask the minister if any agreement has been reached in principle or actually concluded with Interprovincial Pipe Line. If so, what guarantees, if any have been given and what is the nature of those guarantees?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, after protracted negotiations between representatives of the Crown and Interprovincial Pipe Line, a draft deficiency agreement has been worked out with Interprovincial Pipe Line whereby, in general terms, the government will in the years in which there is no revenue from the Sarnia to Montreal section be prepared to assume responsibility for the fixed operating costs of that section of the pipeline. The purpose is to lay that particular draft agreement before the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. I will be seeking, by way of a supplementary estimate, authority to enter into agreement on that particular part. At that time the agreement, which as I say has not yet been executed by the parties, will be laid before the committee for committee discussion.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Does the proposed agreement contain a provision that the traffic charges to customers on the pipeline which is now in existence to Sarnia will be increased slightly, and the rate from Sarnia to Montreal will be increased substantially? Is that a commitment which the government has made in this proposed agreement?
3440

February 21, 1975
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the government could not make that commitment in this agreement. The tolls and tariffs on the line, as the hon. member knows, are determined by the National Energy Board under the National Energy Board Act. However, the agreement does make provision that if in the board's judgment in setting the tariffs for the two parts of the line, a lower tariff is set between Sarnia and Montreal and a higher one between Edmonton and Sarnia, to that extent the government's deficiency payment would be reduced. Obviously, the exact setting of the tariffs on the line is something the National Energy Board will have to determine. The agreement provides for that eventuality, but of course the administration cannot make that kind of agreement in the absence of the board.


SARNIA-MONTREAL PIPELINE-AMOUNT FOR WHICH GOVERNMENT LIABLE UNDER AGREEMENT WITH INTERPROVINCIAL PIPE LINE
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that Imperial Oil, which is a major shareholder in Interprovincial, seems to have again stonewalled the government in compelling them to make concessions in order to build this pipeline, can the minister give the House any estimate as to what it will cost the government in paying the cost during the period the pipeline is completed but not in operation. If there is any deadline, has it been established so that the protracted period that has gone on in the past will not obtain in the future while the government is picking up the tab?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The protracted period of what?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The protracted period of negotiations. The Prime Minister announced this project a year ago last September, and it has not even been started. What provision is there for the period between the time this agreement is entered into and the time the pipeline is supposed to be in operation, the period during which the government will be responsible for certain financial commitments? Does the minister have any estimate as to what the financial implications will be?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should make it clear to the hon. member the government will not be responsible for any financial commitments in advance of the completion of the line and throughput of oil through it. The government's commitment will only be in respect of a future year in which the revenue from the line, because of a drop in throughput, would not be sufficient to meet fixed and variable operating costs. There is no immediate financial commitment involved, that is for a payment this year. As to how much it will cost in the future, that is something it may be difficult to estimate. However, probably one of the better arenas in which to discuss that would be the standing committee where we can exchange views with the officials.


HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS
Hon. Martin O'Connell (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Will the minister consider the inclusion in the Hazardous Products Act of blue fibre asbestos as a material dangerous to health with a view to banning its import into Canada where it is used in the manufacture of asbestos products, such as in the Johns-Manville plant in Scarborough. I ask this in view of the fact that blue fibre asbestos, if inhaled by workers or emitted into the air of the community, may cause a form of cancer which is always fatal.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the authority of the Hazardous Products Act has already been used to ban the use of asbestos in the manufacturing of clothes. The officials of my department, in cooperation with Department of National Health and Welfare officials, are currently investigating the matter and if necessary, we shall not hesitate to invoke the Hazardous Products Act again.


MANPOWER
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Under the social policy reform program that the Minister of National Health and Welfare proposed to the provincial ministers of social affairs, a community employment policy was proposed and it was reported that the Department of Manpower and Immigration is about to implement twenty pilot projects across Canada. Can the parliamentary secretary tell the House what this community employment program really is? Does it consist in public works or in another kind or project which would result in any production needed by the Canadian people?


Mr. William Rompkey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: I believe the hon. member is referring to the community employment strategy concerning which we are holding discussions, now, with all the provincial governments. These talks are at various stages at the present time. The intention is to get at the "hard core" unemployed and provide jobs for them within the community. Discussions are going on within local communities and I would be glad to advise the hon. member of the nature of those discussions in his own riding.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary.
February 21, 1975

Could the parliamentary secretary say right now whether the purpose of those projects is to replace the local initiatives program we have had for three or four years?


Bill Rompkey: This is a long range concept as compared with the Local Initiatives Program and, hopefully, it will provide more permanent jobs for the hard core of unemployed people.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, while this question was alluded to-


Some hon. Members:: Leader!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Heward Grafftey: In the interval since this matter was alluded to in a question put to the Minister of Finance 48 hours ago, we on this side of the House have had a chance to study the blue book of estimates. These estimates, together with supplementary estimates and the current rate of inflation amount to an increase over the last fiscal year of more than 30 per cent. In these circumstances I would ask the Prime Minister how he, together with the Minister of Finance, proposes to continue the government lecture to the private sector to practice restraint.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I believe the figure given by the hon. member does not take into account the estimates and the supplementary estimates. He should compare similar things. If he does so, he will get a better statistical result.


William Heward Grafftey: I can assure the Prime Minister that we on this side have come up with these figures after detailed consultation with many people. The current inflation rate, together with the supplementary estimates proposed by the President of the Treasury Board, bring the increase over the last fiscal year close to 30 per cent and I ask the Prime Minister how he and the Minister of Finance propose to continue to tell the private sector to practice restraint in those circumstances.


ALLEGED DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON CHILDREN OF FOOD COLOURING-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that reputable sources indicate that artificial colouring and flavoring in foods may be contributing to hyperactivity and learning disability in children, can the minister tell us whether any studies are being under-
Oral Questions
taken by his department into the use of these food chemicals and, in particular, into their effect on children?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I know that various studies are made on a continuous basis in the Health Protection Branch. As to whether there have been very recent studies on the matter, I shall inquire and report to the hon. member.


Paul Yewchuk: Since there is no proof to date that these additives have any nutritional value whatsoever, can the minister inform us whether he would be prepared to remove them from the marketplace, taking into account their possible danger?


Marc Lalonde: I shall give the matter closer consideration, Mr. Speaker, and report to the hon. member.


COMMUNICATIONS
Cecil Morris Smith: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State but, in his absence, I will direct it to the Prime Minister. The government's accelerated communications program is a five year crash program which will cost between $150 million and $200 million. Can the Prime Minister advise us what facilities have been installed in the past year since the program was announced and tell us the location of these facilities? Can he supply us with a plan showing these locations and outlining the facilities which are to be established over the next few years?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member will agree, on reflection, that information of this type ought to be sought in another way.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Since the chairman of Air Canada, Mr. Yves Pratt, has indicated that domestic short-haul flights may be subject to rate increases of between 5 and 15 per cent in the coming year, has the minister given any consideration to allowing regional carriers to operate more fully in the area of short-haul operations if they feel they can do a better job than is being done by Air Canada at the present time?


Jean Marchand: The
question is more complex than it might appear. Most of the regional carriers are anxious to abandon short-haul flights.
28996-13VZ

Oral Questions


An hon. Member:: No.


Jean Marchand: Don't say "No", because it is "Yes". They do not make money on them and they are much more interested at this moment in flying south with charter planes than in operating short-haul flights. However, I shall inquire into this. I do not know where the hon. member got his information but I will read what Mr. Pratt said and try to understand what he has in mind.


TRANSPORT
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The railways have increased their freight rates on certain products by 30 per cent since the Western Economic Opportunities Conference took place, at which time the federal government expressed support for a policy favouring the rapid growth of secondary industry and, more particularly, the processing of western Canadian resources. I wonder whether the hon. gentleman feels these increases in freight rates are in keeping with the spirit of that conference. Is he about to come up with a policy which will give effect to the views which were put forward on behalf of the government on that occasion?


Jean Marchand: This is, of course, a general question and it should really be answered in the course of a debate on the Transportation Act of 1967. The hon. member talks about the movement of natural resource products. He knows this comes under what we call agreed rates between the producers and the railways. If the shippers and the railways agree on certain rates, they are free to do so under the law as it stands.


Stanley James Korchinski: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Certain reclassification procedures and changes in the freight rate structure in Western Canada have meant an increase of 500 per cent in the rates charged on certain commodities. I would remind the House that at the Western Economic Conference the Prime Minister expressed deep concern that "so many gifted individual Westerners could feel so much discontent with their present and future prospects." He went on to say that the government has an obvious duty to identify the sources of frustration and to act to overcome them. I ask the Prime Minister whether he does not feel that ample time has now elapsed since that conference for positive action, and does he not think he should take it upon himself, if the Minister of Transport does not come up with a policy now, to remove the Minister of Transport and appoint someone who will bring in a policy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Stanley James Korchinski: I believe the Prime Minister has an obligation to the country to answer the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, I will direct my question to his parliamentary secretary.
Owing to the serious difficulties now encountered by the textile industry throughout Canada, especially in Quebec, could the parliamentary secretary advise the House whether the studies undertaken by the Textile and Clothing Board to determine the causes of the problems undermining that industry which employs 100,000 workers in Canada have been completed and, if so, when the minister will make public the reports of that board?


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, a report has been received from the Textile and Clothing Board. The minister and his officials are now analyzing it and when they are through the minister will make a statement.


FINANCE
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the low number of housing starts for the month of January- 175,000 on a seasonally adjusted basis compared to the target of 210,000 that the minister speaks of-and in view of the government's housing priorities, which mean a drastic cut in the construction of housing for senior citizens and low income families, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether the decision with regard to the cut in housing construction was a decision of the Minister of Finance or the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. If it was the decision of the Minister of Finance, would he explain his reason for the decision?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I really do not know to which decision the hon. gentleman is referring. I can say only that there is legislation before the House with which we intend to deal as soon as the income tax bill is finished, which will allow us to meet the target that the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and I have set before the House.


John Gilbert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I could advise the Minister of Finance that the public housing estimates for Ontario have been cut from $78 million to $50.4 million, in co-operative housing from $65 million to $55.8 million, and in land assembly from $55 million to $35 million, which constitute drastic cuts. Is the Minister of Finance responsible for that decision and, if so, why?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that is a flattering assumption but I should like to check it out.
February 21, 1975


AIRPORTS
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary has to do with housing, but it is supplementary to earlier questions directed to the Minister of Transport with regard to Pickering. Under the original proposal a great many houses in the Pickering area were slated for demolition. Given yesterday's announcement, would the minister say what is the present status of these houses? Are they still slated for demolition and if so, what alternative plans are being made for the occupants?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think this question is a matter for the Minister of Public Works who is in charge of expropriation, so perhaps he would answer the question.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to have the Minister of Public Works answer it.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. lady to repeat the question.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the earlier questions regarding Pickering airport. Under the original proposal a great many houses in the Pickering area were slated for demolition. Given yesterday's announcement, what is the present status of these houses? Are they still slated for demolition and, if so, what alternative plans are being made for the occupants?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that question as notice; I regret to say I am not sure to which houses the hon. lady is making reference. It is intended to proceed with the expropriation plans as filed. There will be no change in either the area to be expropriated or in the type of compensation offered.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain whether I should direct my question to the Minister of State (Fisheries) or to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, but I direct it to the Minister of State (Fisheries) and I hope the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion is listening. A recent fire destroyed six buildings in the town of Lockeport, Nova Scotia, while at the same time one of the leading fish plants in the town was forced to close. Is the minister aware of this situation and, if so, are any efforts being made to assist these people during this serious period of economic hardship? Have any representations been made to the minister by the provincial government in Nova Scotia seeking provincial aid to cover this disaster?
Oral Questions


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, I am very much aware of this problem. I have discussed it with officials from the Nova Scotia government and we are doing everything we can from our point of view to help find a solution.


POST OFFICE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. Now that mail is being cleared through the Montreal office, and in view of the assurance that mail would be going forward in the Toronto office as at midnight last night, would the hon. gentleman inform the House whether the further delay and continuation of the strike in Toronto is related to the ideological conflict to which he referred on February 17 and, if so, what action is he taking to deal with this growing aggravation?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, as is usually the case in a legal strike, there is a certain amount of confusion in the first couple of days. As the hon. gentleman has quite properly pointed out, picketing in most areas is very peaceful. The couriers are obviously not crossing the line for philosophical reasons, though women sorters are quite prepared to cross. We have an obligation to run the post office. As long as the picket lines are peaceful, we will have to find truck drivers who have the courage to cross a picket line. With regard to those who resort to violence and vandalism, the law will be used to the utmost to weed these people out of the post office, because they are not representative of the average postal worker.
In so far as the cheques for senior citizens are concerned, the unions are now working very closely with postal authorities to make sure that no impediment is placed in the way of an orderly delivery of cheques to people who are the innocent victims of labour disputes. In the case of the hon. member for Churchill, if he finds it too onerous to go from door to door and needs a jet, perhaps he will take advantage of the gymnasium in the Confederation Building to get in shape.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, now that it is understood that the strike in Toronto is continuing into the weekend, which makes the flow of cheques critical, I wonder whether the Postmaster General could be more specific in outlining emergency plans for distribution of these cheques than he was in respect of the tongue-in-cheek proposal he made to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and to the hon. member for Churchill?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the point I was making to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands was a serious one. If we cannot deliver senior citizens' cheques by mail, and the unfortunate part of this situation is that senior citizens are becoming very concerned and abnor-

February 21, 1975
Oral Questions
mally worried about whether they are going to get their cheques, let me assure the hon. member that they will get them. If there is any danger that the cheques will not be delivered by mail, we will place them at appropriate depots in various constituencies. There are certain senior citizens who, for physical reasons, cannot travel to those locations, and my suggestion was that in those cases we would be glad to deliver those cheques through local service agencies and, hopefully, civic-minded members of parliament.


Cecil Morris Smith: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise on a point of order. I have been sitting here for the last four months observing the performance, especially of the Postmaster General, and although I am an auctioneer, a fairly good one I think, I doubt very much if I could even get an opening bid if he were put on the auction block.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to get into the auction business, but I am going to raise a point of order that certainly affects my privileges, and one about which I am getting very irritated.


An hon. Member:: You are always irritated.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Yes, I am. I have been sitting here for a week trying to ask a question of the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) on a matter which broke about this time last week, or at least it was in the newspapers last Friday. The Solicitor General, unfortunately, was not here on Monday or on Wednesday, on which occasions I did not move out of my seat, but on Tuesday, Thursday and today I have tried to catch Your Honour's eye. I do not know whether the story could still be considered relevant, but I think it
is.	The Solicitor General did stay in the House today, I think hoping that at least one member would be recognized in order to ask a question on this subject.
With all due respect to Your Honour, I cannot for the life of me understand how you can recognize hon. members in front of me, to the right of me, to the left of me and behind me-some hon. members have not only been recognized once but twice in the last week, and my seatmate was recognized once yesterday in absentia-yet when I was standing at the same time Your Honour could not recognize me. Perhaps Your Honour has forgotten the name of the riding I have the honour to represent. I say to Your Honour that many things have happened in this last month in relation to the decorum and rules of this House which are starting to irritate me. As far as the question period is concerned, aside from any criticism about whether the opposition is handling the question period properly, I believe the question period has been effectively gutted.
I should like to ask, as I almost did yesterday when we were discussing the business of the House, either through Your Honour or directly through the House leader, that Order No. 10 under Government Business, which has to do with the procedures of this House, be referred to the Committee on Procedure and Organization. Then, perhaps this charade, farce or, as far as I am concerned, completely irrelevant question period, can be restored to a meaningful thing and we can get some drive or momentum back into
it.
I have other points I could mention that reflect upon the Chair, but I am not going to get into them today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: In the ruling you made on Friday last, you said that the House was the master of its own rules, referring to the flood of Creditiste motions under Standing Order 43, yet on Wednesday when we were back on another motion under Standing Order 43 we were unable to discuss it because of procedure; there seems to be a contradiction that must be straightened out. There also have been some other ad hoc decisions which I think have to be straightened out.
The sooner we refer this question of procedure to the committee, the sooner the irritation felt by a number of members on this side of the House can be corrected, and Your Honour can again continue to be the conscience of this House. Quite frankly, as far as I am concerned, my conscience is no part of the collective conscience of the Chair.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Mr. Speaker:: Having regard to the question of privilege or point of order raised by the hon. member, let me say that, as the hon. member will have observed today, the question period should have concluded at about two minutes past 12, but knowing there were several members who sought an opportunity to pose their questions this week I deliberately extended the question period some 10 minutes in an attempt to accommodate as many of those members as possible. The hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan), whose constituency and parliamentary performance I know and understand very well, is one of those who was unable to be recognized today or yesterday. He joins a number of others I could name, if he wishes me to expose the names, as I have kept a careful record during the last several weeks. The list includes his colleagues sitting in front of him, behind him and beside him.
There is simply a physical limitation to the number of members I am able to recognize in any question period. I deeply regret that the hon. member takes so seriously the fact that he was among those not recognized. He must surely understand that he joins several of his colleagues each day in that category, and this is as much a source of regret to me as it is to him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising out of the discussion that has just taken place. Perhaps the House would be willing now to pass, without debate, the item of government business which is No. 10 on the Order Paper under Government Business, allowing that committee to get on with its job.


Mr. Sharp:: Mr. Speaker, I offered to do this the other day. I do agree with the hon. member that it is time that committee of the House had a look at our rules. For instance, there are many of them dealing with supply and so on that deserve consideration, so I would be very happy, speaking on behalf of members on this side of the House, if we could pass that item now without debate.

February 21, 1975


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure we would be prepared to accept this suggestion, but I would offer this caution. I have had some discussions with the government House leader, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and others in respect of an interim procedure by which we could deal with supply, as this has become an exceedingly sore spot in the operations of this Chamber. There have been some suggestions made as to how we could impose an interim measure to deal with at least those estimates now before the House.
In agreeing to this suggestion, it will be understood that these discussions will continue and that probably we will work out some new method of dealing with at least the current estimates. If the government House leader is prepared to indicate his acceptance, I am sure we are prepared to let the order pass now.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mitchell William Sharp: That the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization be authorized to consider the Standing Orders of the House and procedure in both the House and its committees;
And that the Committee be authorized to include in its reports drafts of proposed permanent or temporary Standing Orders drawn to give effect, if concurred in by the House, to any permanent or temporary change or changes proposed by the Committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, February 19, consideration in committee of Bill C-49, to amend the statute law relating to income tax-Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carle-ton)-Mr. Penner in the chair.
The Deputy Chairman:: When the committee rose on Wednesday, February 19, 1975, clause 73 as amended had been carried. Shall clause 74 carry?
On clause 74.
Income Tax


Mr. Paproski:: Mr. Chairman, our financial critic has something to say in regard to this clause. We would like it to stand until he is in the chamber. We extended the minister the courtesy of sufficient time to bring in a table and we did not think it could be set up in so short a time.


John Napier Turner: Perhaps we could stand the clause for a moment, but how many more do hon. members want to stand? The government is ready to roll.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


B. Keith Penner: Shall clause 74 stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause stood.
Clause 75 agreed to.
On clause 76.


Walter David Baker: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we realize the government is ready to roll but we are not sure in what direction, whether it is sideways, forward or backward. I had trouble with my earpiece and I want to ask what clause we are dealing with.


B. Keith Penner: Clause 74 has been stood. Clause 75 has been carried and the committee is now on clause 76.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: I think this would be the time to bring forward the suggestion I made when we were discussing clause 2 with relation to special dispensations for elderly persons, and to make a correction which friendly members, happily, made for me at the time because I was unable to do so. I had in mind a ceiling on the total exemption on income taxes for persons over 65, a ceiling which I think could be worked out conveniently at $20,000 to $25,000. I was not thinking of an exemption for people with unlimited incomes when entering retirement. I wonder whether the minister has had an opportunity to re-examine this motion of granting broader exemptions to persons over 65. The argument we were employing at the time-which I think is valid-was that far too much of the government's revenue from public funds is being taken from elderly persons in the form of income tax.
Some of our provident workers have managed to put aside revenue, depriving themselves in their working years of some of the benefits of that revenue in the hope that they would be able to take advantage of it when the time came for retirement. They were not free to travel in their working years, and now they are free to travel, or they may have special calls on their income. Some of them may have special calls for medical purposes and if they were to cash in some of their savings, those savings would be subject to capital gains tax.
I think we have here an opportunity to provide for the elderly members of our community additional funds without the government making any outlay. It would mean reduced revenue for the government but not an outlay. We have been charged by the other side of the House with talking from two sides of our mouths, saying that we want restraint on government spending, on one hand, and that the government should pay out more for this, that and the

February 21, 1975
Income Tax
other service, on the other hand. We offered the government a means of restraint today and yesterday with respect to the Pickering airport. We have offered them a means of saving $300 million. The government is not interested in that sort of restraint, so I am offering another one-not an outlay but a reduction of revenue from a very special class of people who have saved.
My other argument for putting forward this notion is that it would encourage the ethic of saving, which is a very valuable trait but somehow has fallen into disuse. Has the minister had an opportunity to consider, since I first put forward the notion, extending more benefits to people over 65; in fact, exempting them from income tax and all other taxes?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, the revenue consequences of the hon. member's suggestion, with so many people over 65 in this country, would be quite considerable. I would call to the hon. member's attention the supplementary information issued on budget night, on page 17, which indicates what we have done, particularly over the last three years, for elderly people. As a result of the measures announced in the budget, a taxpayer 65 years of age or over may have as much as $8,258 of income before paying any federal tax at all in 1975.


Donald W. Munro: Make it more.


John Napier Turner: This figure assumes a married couple, each in receipt of old age security payments of $1,441 in 1975; one spouse also has some pension income as well as some investment income. The figure of $8,258 is determined as follows: basic exemptions, $1,878; net spouse's exemption, $537; age exemption, $1,174; spouse's age exemption, $1,174; interest dividend deduction, $1,000; pension deduction, $1,000; standard medical and charitable deduction, $100-total, $6,863-exempt equivalent of tax cut, $1,395: for a grand total of $8,258. We have moved a great deal in the last two or three years to raise the taxable income up to which elderly people are exempt.


Donald W. Munro: 1 thank the minister for that clarification. This is a step for which he and the government are to be commended. However, I suggest that more can be done for persons 65 and over. The tabulation, of course, is an oversimplification because it presumes that both the husband and wife are over 65, but it sometimes happens that one is 65 and the other is perhaps 60. I think the breadwinner at that age has to face-in fact, they both have to face-extra charges in terms of trying to maintain their home in habitable condition, which is a very high cost these days.
I hope the minister will for a number of years be capable of carrying out home repairs if they need to be done. But when he gets to age 65 he may find he is unable to climb a ladder to fix a hole in the roof, or to do some other things around the house. It is this sort of thing that our elderly are faced with, and they should be allowed to retain the income they have set aside for those special years in order to meet these charges.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I want to remind both the Minister of Finance and the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich that all this talk about what has been done to exempt elderly persons from income tax is of no help to those who do not receive enough income to be on the income tax rolls. The minister knows I am going to say this, but I say to him again that as a member of the cabinet, if he is concerned for elderly people he should be pushing for a very substantial boost in the basic amount of the old age pension.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Chairman, may we go back to clause 74 in order that it may be agreed to, thus dealing with matters in a more efficient manner and allowing the minister to continue?


John Napier Turner: I remember that the hon. member used to be a "take charge" guy on the field, and now he is a "take charge" guy in the House.


B. Keith Penner: Is it agreed that we return to clause 74?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 74 agreed to.
On clause 77.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment I would like to move with respect to clause 77.1 move:
That subclause 77(2) of the bill be amended by striking out the figure "8" where the same appears in line 10 at page 195 and substituting therefor the figure "13".
I do not intend to make a lengthy speech on this amendment. I would only point out to members who are here that this is certainly not a typographical amendment such as the minister is proposing. My amendment would mean a tax reduction for the Canadian taxpayer of $500 million.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I
wonder whether the House has not already dealt with this 5 per cent tax cut in the amendment at second reading and, if the House has so dealt with it, whether the same issue can again be presented. I would argue and submit to Your Honour that the amendment is not in order for that reason, having been previously dealt with by the House on the same bill.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Chairman, this issue is too important to be subject to what I can only term specious legal argument. Because the minister has chosen to take this position with regard to the matter, let me say that the House of course dealt with it. However, the House did not deal with it in the terms of a clause of a particular bill such as is now before the committee. Although the outcome and the question could be the same, the procedures are different.
The committee should not be fettered, particularly in view of the fact that this bill will be reported back to the House, where it will again be dealt with by the House. I know of no precedent, and the minister has advanced none, with regard to this matter. My respectful submission
February 21, 1975

is that it would have to be an absolutely clearcut decision, without any grey areas, if there were a precedent that would put the committee in the position where it could not debate and decide an issue that is so important to the people of this country in terms of tax relief. I cannot conceive that the rules were ever considered to be used in a way that would deny discussion by the members of a committee with regard to a matter of such importance.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I wish to supplement briefly what the hon. member has just said. If Your Honour were to give effect to the argument of the Minister of Finance-I think he presented it with tongue in cheek-it would mean that if on second reading of a bill the question was put, the House voted in favour of second reading and the bill was sent to committee, each and every clause in the bill could not be the subject of attack by the committee. That would be a preposterous situation. The committee is certainly entitled to examine with care each clause and decide whether it wants to accept it or change it.
I would point out to the Chair that under the new procedure which has been adopted in the reverse of this situation time after time in standing committees, votes are taken on individual clauses of a bill and the government may be sustained, as it is from time to time, but that does not prohibit our coming back into the House at report stage and moving an amendment in precisely the same terms. Surely that is of some significance. There must be some relationship. If we can do it in one instance, we should be entitled to do it in another. It would be a very grave injustice to deny this committee the right to express its views on the amendment put by my hon. friend.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I support the position just taken by the hon. member for Peace River. It is good to have him back.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: The amendment moved by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham on February 6 was an amendment on second reading of the bill. It was in these words:
-this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-49 because it fails to provide for a further 5 per cent reduction in personal income tax in 1975 and subsequent taxation years despite unprecedented government revenues and the resulting overtaxation by the government.
That was recognized as a reasoned amendment. Thus, it was not an amendment to the bill itself. The House expressed its opinion at that time on the question of whether we should proceed with second reading with or without that change. I do not see where that governs the proceedings of the House from that point on. As a matter of fact, we are not now in the House; we are in committee of the whole.
As Your Honour knows, many times a bill is sent to a standing committee and something that has been argued for and defeated on the floor of the House is nevertheless moved as an amendment in the standing committee. If there were any question about the right of a private member to move a reduction in taxation, that would be a different point. However, it has been pretty well established over the last several years that although private members cannot move an increase in taxation, they can
Income Tax
move for a reduction in taxation. Therefore, I think Your Honour should disregard the argument proposed by the Minister of Finance and allow this amendment as being in order.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, because of the importance of this matter, Your Honour may want to reserve decision on the admissibility of this particular amendment. I can say that if Your Honour were to see fit to admit it at this time, I doubt very much that we would make much progress for the rest of the day.


An hon. Member:: He is threatening a filibuster.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as the mover of this motion may I say that I hope you will put the question. We believe there is something very fundamental at stake here. My amendment would mean from $60 to $150 for each taxpayer in this country. The minister is simply stalling for time rather than allowing us to go to a vote.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


B. Keith Penner: Order, please. If there are no further comments on the point of order, the Chair is prepared to make a ruling at this time. I thank hon. members for the contributions they have made. The point raised by the Minister of Finance has been fully taken into consideration. It is quite correct, as he suggests, that the substance of the second reading amendment and this amendment at committee stage are similar. There is a different aspect, however, because of the stage at which the bill is now being considered. The vote taken at second reading stage was on the principle of the bill, that principle being stated in general terms. Now, in committee stage, we are considering items specifically in the clause by clause study and therefore the committee has the right to consider again a particular clause of the bill.
For the information of the hon. member, the Chair has been guided in this regard by May's eighteenth edition which at page 483 reads:
The various stages through which a bill progresses ... are intended by the practice of parliament to provide so many opportunities not only for consideration, but also for reconsideration. Such stages may be taken to include the passage of any necessary financial resolution. Thus an entire bill may be regarded as one question which is not settled until it is passed. And hence no objection can be taken to an amendment on any particular stage on the ground that it raises again a question decided on an earlier stage.
Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


B. Keith Penner: Shall the amendment to clause 77(2) carry?
Amendment (Mr. Stevens) negatived; Yeas, 37; nays, 50.


B. Keith Penner: I declare the amendment lost.


Mr. Hogan:: Mr. Chairman-


B. Keith Penner: Shall clause 77 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Andrew Hogan: Mr. Chairman.
3448

February 21, 1975
Income Tax


B. Keith Penner: The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.


Andrew Hogan: grave injustice to women in the labour force as well as to the younger workers by taking this stand? This notion usually comes from those who have never faced the personal loss of a job with all its insecurity in financial and emotional terms.
A superficial way of estimating the cost of unemployment is to consider the money paid out in unemployment benefits and welfare. But the more serious economic effect is the enormous waste, as many goods that could have been produced are not. Tax revenues go down as federal and provincial governments are deprived of their share of the workers' income and there is often a loss of corporation taxes associated with the decline. The real tragedy, as we know, is in human and psychological terms affecting people who no longer are wanted to fulfil a customary productive role in society. The deeper the recession-and this is likely to be a deep recession-the more serious the emotional and financial scars suffered by the unwanted. It is also true, as many studies of the behaviour of the labour force in times of recession show, that discouraged workers drop out of the labour force entirely. Unemployment figures do not reveal the serious under-utilization of the human beings in the economy.
Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, as we debate this clause we face a serious depression which will likely take us longer to come out of than the 1958 one, and may go even deeper as measured by decreases in output and income and increases in unemployment. It is going to be more painful before any improvement will occur. It will be painful for all of us, especially for those who are unemployed and bear the heaviest share of the burden. The recession would end sooner if personal income taxes were cut much deeper, if rebates were provided for those earning lower incomes, and greater exemptions accorded to those at the lower end of the income scale. I ask the minister to act on his humanitarian principles, to do something effective to help the unemployed, and to let us have deeper tax cuts and those other things I have asked for.


B. Keith Penner: Shall clause 77 carry?


Mr. Nystrom:: I wanted to ask a couple of questions, but perhaps we could call it one o'clock.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2 p.m.
The Chairman:: Order, please. When the committee rose at one o'clock it was considering clause 77. Shall clause 77 carry?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Chairman, I indicated at one o'clock that I wanted to ask the minister a couple of questions. Clause 77 provides for individual income tax cuts. I remember that when this idea was first proposed a few years ago, it had a degree of progressiveness to it whereby you had a maximum cut of $500 and a minimum cut of $100, which is now being raised to $150. I think this is a
Income Tax
step in the right direction in terms of not leaving it open-ended.
I would ask the minister, as I did last year, whether he has put more thought into the tax credit idea which I think is even more equitable than this. Under this idea, everyone, regardless of income, gets a tax credit of $200, $400 or whatever the national budget can stand. Tax credits apply not only to those who pay income tax but to those not even on the tax rolls, the poor people who do not pay taxes now, as the tax laws are presently constituted. I wonder whether the minister would respond to this question and let me know his latest thinking and philosophy in regard to a genuine tax credit.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman is quite correct in saying there was a lot more progressiveness in the tax reductions in the last three budgets than has been the case in our history. When it comes to a tax credit, particularly tax credits which really constitute payments to those who ordinarily would not pay taxes because of their income level, this is contingent upon proposals advanced by my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Where I stand, he stands; and where he stands, I stand.


Andrew Hogan: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister would answer the questions I put to him, including why, in view of the changing circumstances, he is reluctant to make any change in his budget. It is obvious that unemployment in this country has increased immensely, as I have mentioned. Personally, I am not satisfied with the answers he has given the committee and would like him to go into a little more sophistication in explaining his reasoning, or in explaining the advice he has received from his officials. We are facing a serious recession in this country and the minister's proposals will not meet it. He will be forced to bring in a mini-budget, so why not do it now?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I should like to respond with whatever sophistication the hon. gentleman demands of me, but I gave a simple answer in some detail to the committee a week ago yesterday when the Leader of the Opposition put questions to me, firstly about the consensus process of getting moderation in demand from all segments of the economy and, second, concerning the required stimulus necessary at this stage.
I said to him in the committee that there were two aspects that I wanted to look at very carefully. The first was the stimulus that we injected on November 18, which is beginning to take effect as of January 1 by reason of the larger payrolls reflecting the lower tax payments for the 1974 and 1975 tax years. Second, I want to see what the evolving situation is in the United States in relation to the administration and congress and what final mix will take effect. I do not disagree with what the hon. member said before lunch, but I do want to make sure that we have analysed the situation in terms of facts and forecasts. If he would be good enough to review what I said earlier, I said it all then and I really do not have too much to add now.


Andrew Hogan: The minister knows darned well that he is going to have to come back here with a mini-budget within the next month, so why not do it now? Even his
28996-14H

Income Tax
forecasters can tell him how bad the economy is, and it will take six months, based on past historical recessions since the post-war period, for all the measures proposed for the United States economy to take a grip. Why wait to have them correct our situation? Admittedly, our economies are interlocked in a close way, whether we like it or not. But it should be obvious to the minister and his government, if they are sincere in saying they do not want to increase unemployment in this country or cut down price levels, that they will have to do something more significant to assist our lower income groups and help the total economy.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I am not disagreeing with the hon. member's remarks, but perhaps he would be good enough to read what I have said. When he does so, then on balance I do not think he will disagree with it too much. I appreciate his patience; I know the part of the country from which he comes and the problems there. Perhaps if we get this bill out of the way, we can look at any new situation as it comes. I do not accept his assumption that I will necessarily have to come in with a new budget; I have not made up my mind one way or the other as to that. But if he could use his good influence on his colleagues to get this particular measure out of the way, then we could look at any new circumstances afresh.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Chairman, I want to lend my support to what the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond has said. I believe we are in one of the most serious economic situations since the 1930s, not just in respect of the unemployment rate but in respect of the inflation rate and the economic recession. We now have some 817,000 people unemployed. Our economy is closely tied to the economy of the United States, and most economists are predicting that the unemployment rate there will soon hit an unprecedented rate of 9 per cent, 9.5 per cent or 10 per cent. If that happens in the United States, it will soon happen here. The minister shakes his head, but historically our unemployment rate has been within 1 per cent or 1.5 per cent of that in the United States.
I urge the minister to give serious consideration to increasing the tax cut. I predict that he will be coming back with a budget in the next two or three months, and if he does not increase the tax cut now I am sure that by then the unemployment statistics will go up and we will be facing an even higher inflationary rate and a worse general situation. What is needed to stimulate the economy is another $1 billion or $2 billion in the hands of the people in the low income bracket.
If these people had the money, they would spend it because they must have the necessities of life such as food and clothing. They will not save these funds, they will spend them, which in turn will stimulate the economy and productivity to the extent of a couple of billion dollars and even more, much of which will come back to all levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal in the form of additional taxes. I strongly urge the minister to seriously consider this because I think that is the right direction in which we should move.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 77 carry?


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could direct a question to the minister.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


David Orlikow: I do not know why those who have already spoken feel they must object when someone else wants to ask a question.


John Napier Turner: Paproski has not said a word.


David Orlikow: Would the minister take a few moments to answer the questions put before the lunch hour by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond? I think this is important because of the argument put forward, not just in Canada but in the United States, by many economists, not just the chief advisers to Kennedy and Johnson but some who were advisers to President Nixon a few years ago, to the effect that the $20 billion deficit President Ford is proposing is too little and too late to meet the economic difficulties now facing the United States.
Would the minister take some time to compare the situation in Canada with the situation in the United States? I suggest that in his budget proposals of last November and the amendments to the Income Tax Act with which we are now dealing, the minister is essentially proposing to meet the rapid rise in the rate of unemployment in the same way as President Ford in the United States. In the opinion of many expert economists in Canada and the United States, the minister's proposals will have the same disastrous effect in this country as President Ford's proposals and lack of action are likely to have in the United States.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 78.
John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, it has been brought to our attention that apparently the corporation surtax as provided under section 123.2 would apply to the 10 per cent tax on corporations' mining or petroleum profits, or manufacturing and processing profits which are allocated to the Northwest Territories. This result is not the intended policy. This tax in respect of the provinces must be excluded from the surtax, but evidently we are putting a heavier burden on the territories than on the rest of the country. That, taken together with certain technical problems, prompts me to move the following amendment which has already been circulated to members of the committee:
That clause 78 of Bill C-49 be amended
(a)	by striking out lines 1 and 2 on page 196 and substituting the
following:
'year (determined as if the expression "in a province other than the Northwest Territories or the Yukon Territory" in section 124 was read as "in all the provinces" and determined without reference to this section or section 126)"
(b)	by striking out line 11 of the French version on page 196 and
substituting the following:
"(ii) l'annee d'imposition 1975, 28%, et*
(c)	by striking out lines 13 to 15 on page 196 and substituting the
following:
February 21, 1975

"profits from oil or gas wells in Canada for the year,"
(d)	by striking out lines 18 and 19 on page 196 and substituting the following:
"resources in Canada for the year,"
(e)	by striking out lines 33 to 38 on page 197 and substituting the following:
"taxable production profits from mineral resources in Canada for the year or taxable production profits from oil or gas wells in Canada for the year (in this section"
(f)	by striking out line 45 on page 197 and substituting the following:
"case may be, 50% of its taxable income or taxable income earned in Canada, as the case may be;"
(g)	by striking out line 52 on page 197 and substituting the following:
"mined under section 123, except where otherwise provided, in respect of"
(h)	by striking out lines 2 to 7 on page 198 and substituting the following:
'able" referred to therein was
(A)	its taxable income, or
(B)	its taxable income earned in Canada,
minus the aggregate of its taxable production profits." '
and
(i)	by striking out line 19 on page 198 and substituting the following:
"taxable production profits from oil or"


Gérald Laniel: The committee has heard the amendment. Shall the amendment carry?
Amendment (Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 78 as amended carry?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Chairman, I have just one question. The hon. member for Edmonton Centre is concerned that we are asking questions about these clauses. The corporation surtax applies to a whole series of corporations but excludes another series including investment corporations, mortgage investment corporations, mutual fund corporations, deposit insurance corporations, and so on. I should like to ask the minister why so many in this classification are excluded. There are others, but I do not think I should take the time to read them into the record as the minister and hon. members are aware of them.


John Napier Turner: The exceptions include mining and petroleum corporations which are dealt with separately, so I think there is no problem there in the hon. member's mind.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: That is why I did not mention them.


John Napier Turner: There is no problem for that purpose. The exceptions also include manufacturing and processing corporations which have already received a thrust from this government on other occasions. Although the hon. gentleman may have some qualms about that, this is still not his problem. The other few he has mentioned really are flow-through corporations, or corporations which are really individuals and the tax is imposed at a personal level. We see no reason for imposing an additional tax since the tax is picked up there.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Income Tax
Clause 79 agreed to.
On clause 80.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, previously I tabled an amendment to clause 80. That was on February 10. Now I am tabling a new amendment to this clause and I propose that we not proceed with the earlier amendment. I will give an explanation of this amendment but first I will move it. I do not think there will be too many problems because the amendment is mainly technical. I move:
That clause 80 of Bill C-49 be amended
(a)	by striking out lines 19 and 20 on page 200 and substituting the following:
' Part, "taxable production profits from mineral resources in Canada" of a corpora-'
(b)	by striking out lines 28 and 29 on page 200 and substituting the following:
"59(2.1) and paragraphs 59(3.2)(b) and (c),"
(c)	by striking out line 42 on page 200 and substituting the following: "operated by it,"
(d)	by striking out line 47 on page 200 and substituting the following:
"or its equivalent, and"
(e)	by striking out line 48 on page 200 and substituting the following: "(iii) a rental or royalty, the amount of which is computed by reference to the amount or value of production from a mineral resource in Canada,
exceeds"
(f)	by striking out line 27 on page 201 and substituting the following: "in paragraphs 124.2(1)(a) and (b),"
(g)	by striking out line 29 on page 201 and substituting the following: "amounts deducted under section 65"
(h)	by striking out lines 31 and 32 on page 201 and substituting the following:
"sources of income described in any of subparagraphs (b)(i), (ii) and (iii),"
(i)	by striking out line 38 on page 201 and substituting the following: "amounts deductible or deducted, as the case may be, under subsec-"
(j)	by striking out line 44 on page 201 and substituting the following: "any of subparagraphs (b)(i), (ii) and (iii),"
(k)	by striking out lines 1 and 2 on page 202 and substituting the following:
"(2) For the purposes of this section, a person who has an interest in"
(l)	by striking out lines 16 and 17 on page 202 and substituting the following:
' "taxable production profits from oil or gas wells in Canada" of a corporation for a'
(m)	by striking out lines 29 and 30 on page 202 and substituting the following:
"59(2.1) and paragraphs 59(3.2)(b) and (c),"
(n)	by striking out lines 36 to 47 on page 202 and substituting the following:
"(i) the production of petroleum, natural gas or related hydrocarbons from oil or gas wells in Canada operated by it, and (ii) rentals or royalties, the amounts of which are computed by reference to the amount or value of production from oil or gas wells in Canada, exceeds

February 21, 1975
Income Tax
(c) the aggregate of its losses for the year from those sources, computed in accordance with this Act, on the assumption that it had during the taxation year no incomes or losses except from those sources, and was"
(o)	by striking out line 4 on page 203 and substituting the following: "(6) and section 29 of the Income Tax Application"
(p)	by striking out line 12 on page 203 and substituting the following: "in paragraphs 124.1(l)(a) and (b),"
(q)	by striking out line 13 of the French version on page 203 and substituting the following:
"vertu du sous-alinea 124.1(l)c)(i),"
(r)	by striking out line 14 on page 203 and substituting the following: "amounts deducted under section 65"
(s)	by striking out lines 15 to 18 on page 203 and substituting the following:
"for the year as is in respect of sources of income described in subparagraphs (b)(i) and (ii),"
(t)	by striking out lines 27 to 29 on page 203 and substituting the following:
"to the sources of income described in subparagraphs (b)(i) and (ii)."
(u)	by striking out lines 30 and 31 on page 203 and substituting the following:
Person	"(2) For the purposes of this section, a person who
having an has an interest in the"
interest
deemed to
be an
operator


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) are technical amendments; paragraph (e) concerns the eligibility of royalties for extra resource abatement. It is a relieving amendment at line 48, page 200, which will enable royalty income to qualify for the extra federal tax abatement. There was a mistake in the abatement clause. The purpose of the extra federal tax abatement is to recognize the special position of the provinces in relation to resources and to give them tax room to levy taxes on resources. However, if some other taxpayer operated such a resource under a royalty arrangement, the extra tax room would not apply to this royalty portion and consequently the tax room would be incomplete. The first amendment will correct this first deficiency. It is not a change in policy but just a change to cover something that we had not properly anticipated.
Paragraphs (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (1) and (m) are technical amendments. Paragraphs (n), (o), (p), (q), (r), (s), (t) and (u) are all technical amendments, just correcting the language.


David Orlikow: May I ask the minister a question? Does this amendment have anything to do with the differences between the minister and the provincial governments on resource taxes and, if so, has the intent of this amendment been discussed with the provinces and do they agree?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, this amendment increases resource abatement, so I cannot conceive of any province, whether fundamentally it agrees or disagrees with what we are doing, objecting to the amendment.
Amendment (Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)) agreed to. The Chairman: Shall clause 80 as amended carry?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I have one brief question. Does this clause in any way relate to the clauses that we are standing? I do not think it does, but if it does perhaps we should consider standing it.


John Napier Turner: It deals with resources but really does not get down to the fundamental question of resources. I do not think the hon. gentleman would lose his bargaining position in dealing with resources by allowing this clause to pass.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: As this clause deals with mineral resources, I was wondering if the minister would comment on whether he feels there is an interrelationship between this clause and certain of the clauses that we have already stood. I think, in fairness, the understanding was that clauses 4 and 7 would be stood, as would all other clauses related to the general question of the taxation of our mineral and oil resources.


John Napier Turner: I said that it is related but it provides only the detailed rules defining taxation profits. It is not a "gusty" clause relating to policy; it is only a clause which defines the rules against which the policies apply and I do not think the committee loses any leverage by passing it.
e (1430)


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, would the minister, bearing in mind that he has said it is not a particularly "gusty" clause, to use his language, have any objection to standing the clause, in view of the fact that it is interrelated with some of the clauses which we have stood?


John Napier Turner: I gather the amendment is carried.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Yes.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I am getting nods from all over the committee. Do I gather the amendment is carried?


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. Is it agreed that clause 80 as amended be stood?
Clause stood.
Clauses 81 and 82 agreed to.
On clause 83.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I have a brief question on clause 81. I am sure the minister has the answer at his fingertips.


An hon. Member:: It has been carried.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: If hon. members wish to play it that way, all right.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. We have adopted clause 81 and 82, and procedurally the hon. member must seek the consent of the committee to revert to a clause already agreed to. Would the committee object to the hon. member asking a question on clause 81?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I thank hon. members for their accommodation. Could the minister give us any estimate as to the number of companies within this clause which are benefiting at the present time?


John Napier Turner: I will undertake to get the information for the hon. gentleman.


Gérald Laniel: We will now return to clause 83.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I have a short, technical amendment which I have circulated to the committee. I move:
That clause 83 of Bill C-49 be amended
(a)	by striking out lines 2 and 3 on page 210 and substituting the following:
'of the said act following subparagraph
(i)	thereof is repealed and the following substituted therefor: "(ii) was not deductible by virtue of subsection 20(11) in computing the taxpayer's income for the year; and"'
(b)	by striking out lines 4 to 6 on page 210 and substituting the following:
"(5) Subparagraphs 126(7)(d)(i) and (ii) of the said act are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
(i) in paragraphs (l)(b) and (3)(b), the tax for the taxation year otherwise payable under this part before making any deduction under section 121, subsection 124(2) or (2.2) or any of sections 125 to 127,
(ii)	in subparagraph (2)(c)(i) and'
Amendment (Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)) agreed to. Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 84 agreed to.
On clause 85.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I have circulated an amendment, which I move:
That clause 85 of Bill C-49 be amended by striking out line 37 on page 211 and substituting the following:
"1977 and subsequent taxation years and"
This is a relieving amendment to ensure that the resource tax changes do not inadvertently reduce the tax credit available under the existing law.
Amendment (Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)) agreed to. Clause as amended agreed to.
Clauses 86 to 91 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 92.


John Napier Turner: I have a technical amendment to correct the French translation to correspond with the English version. I move:
That clause 92 of the French version of Bill C-49 be amended
(a)	by striking out line 47 on page 215 and substituting the following: "(i) elle tirait la quasi-totalite de*
(b)	by striking out line 47 on page 216 and substituting the following: "(ii) la quasi-totalite de ses mem-*
(c)	by striking out line 52 on page 216 and line 1 on page 217 and substituting the following:
"credit qui, toutes, tiraient la quasi-totalite de leurs revenus des*
Amendment (Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)) agreed to.
Income Tax


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Chairman, I assume this clause is just allowing interest receipts from credit unions and dividends to be classed as interest and qualified for inclusion under the $1,000; is that correct? Second, I would like to know why members will be treated in classes. What is the purpose of this amendment?


John Napier Turner: It is not the purpose of this amendment, but the answer to the hon. member's question is yes, interest paid by credit unions to their members is exempt under that first $1,000 of interest income, but this is not the amendment which does it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Subclause (2) states that the members will be treated in classes according to the interest rate charged on their borrowings. I am not clear why it is done that way.


John Napier Turner: Subclause (2) is a technical amendment which will allow credit unions to deduct from their income interest rebates credited to their own members which are calculated at a rate in relation to the rate of interest on each individual borrowing transaction conducted by the member. Many credit unions are paying interest rebates at a rate in relation to the rate of interest paid. To calculate their own interest rate they rebate to their members on the basis of the interest rate they have to pay themselves. For example, all members who have borrowed money at the rate of 9 per cent may receive a rebate of one-half per cent, and those with loans at 12 per cent may receive a rebate of 1 per cent under the rules of the credit union. Questions have arisen as to whether the present rules enable a credit union to deduct interest rate rebates calculated in relation to the rate of interest paid. This amendment will ensure that deduction of such interest rates is permitted. It was asked for by the Credit Union Association, and this is what we are doing.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, clause 92(3)(b)(i) reads:
-it derived all or substantially all of its revenues from-
Then it lists various things, and paragraph (ii) provides:
-all or substantially all of the members thereof-
Could the minister explain why the rather nebulous term "substantially all" is used? Could a more precise percentage not be used in order to identify, for people dealing with this section, exactly what the department has in mind?


John Napier Turner: The Department of National Revenue has to estimate whether primarily or substantially all revenues are derived from legitimate sources, that is, sources that qualify under the act. The current act requires that the credit union derive its revenues- "primarily" is the word in the current act-from listed categories of income. The hon. gentleman knows that credit unions normally derive their revenues from a variety of sources, and some from other than those listed in the act. Some of them are even deriving more than half of their revenues from some unlisted sources and therefore do not qualify under the current definition.
The amendment which will be effective for the 1972 and subsequent taxation years will replace the word "primari-

Income Tax
ly" with the words "substantially all". I am advised by the Department of Justice that this is a more inclusive term, and since more sources of income will be inserted all existing credit unions will qualify. Again, this was pointed out to us by the credit unions and we are glad to oblige.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: If the term "substantially all" is wider than the term now used, can the minister give us some idea what it means? In clear, everyday language what does the department mean by "substantially all"? Are they talking about 51 per cent or more?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman,
"primarily" would mean a majority of the revenue; "substantially all" means virtually everything. What it really means is that the new, qualifying categories of income will include, first, revenues from securities or loans of or guaranteed by the Government of Canada or the provinces, a Canadian municipality or agency thereof. I might say that the current act restricts this provision to bonds while excluding those of or guaranteed by government agencies. The provision is to allow the credit union more latitude.
Second, the new category would include revenues from funds or deposits with a bank, a trust company or a central credit union and, third, revenues from charges, fees and dues levied against its members. I think the credit union movement will be given more flexibility under this provision.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: What we are saying is that under the present wording the department's interpretation of "primarily all" could have meant something over 50 per cent, whereas now we are coming closer to 100 per cent?


John Napier Turner: That is so, but we are also broadening the class.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Could the minister give an indication of the departments's estimate of the total tax benefit to credit unions as a result of the tax accommodation offered to them?


John Napier Turner: It is pretty hard to estimate. It depends how well they do in competition with other financial institutions. This puts them in a better competitive position.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Perhaps the minister misunderstood. I am simply referring to the past year, or whatever year he has a relative figure for. Has there ever been an estimate of the tax advantage offered to credit unions as a result of this and similar provisions in the Income Tax Act?


John Napier Turner: I must ask, compared to what? It depends on the basis. We could ascertain for the hon. gentleman just what credit unions pay in taxes. The purpose of this amendment is not revenue or loss of revenue; it is to put credit unions in a position to compete with other financial institutions.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The minister asks, compared to what? I mean, compared to how they would be taxed if they were a standard business corporation having to meet the general tax laws that prevail.


John Napier Turner: Because this changes the competition for and the eligibility of funds available to credit unions under the provisions of the law, the answer depends upon how effective credit unions are in taking advantage of it to compete with other institutions. I could not give a solid answer to that question.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Perhaps we are not communicating properly. I am asking, not in particular reference to this amendment but as a general point of information, if the government has any estimate of the tax concession being given to credit unions as a result of the lenient tax provision in the Income Tax Act. What would the tax concession be if they were required to pay the same type of taxes as most business corporations?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, we do not have the figures for the current year; the latest years we have for credit union income are 1971-72. The hon. gentleman would have to attach a 50 per cent rate against that and then allocate income sources and make the calculation. We could try to do that for him, but we do not have it at our fingertips.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Would the minister agree to give those figures to the committee?


John Napier Turner: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would agree to do that. I do not know whether I can do it in time to satisfy the committee, but on a later occasion I will do it. This is not a revenue amendment; it is to allow credit unions to compete with other financial institutions. Clause agreed to.
Clauses 93 and 94 agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The committee will now proceed to clause 95 with regard to which there is notice of an amendment.
On clause 95.


John Napier Turner: We have to correlate the two versions. I therefore move;
That clause 95 of the French version of Bill C-49 be amended by striking out lines 16 to 22 on page 225 and substituting the following:
"a) compris dans le meme fonds reserve de la corporation;
b)	des biens non reserves utilises dans l'annee, ou detenus dans le cadre de l'exploitation d'une entreprise d'assurance-vie au Canada; ou
c)	des biens non reserves utilises dans"
Amendment (Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 95 as amended carry?
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clauses 96 and 97 agreed to.
On clause 98.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I have another technical amendment in order to correlate the two versions. I move:
That clause 98 of the French version of Bill C-49 be amended by striking out lines 8 to 16 on page 228 and substituting the following: "regime de participation des employes aux benefices a) etait regie par un regime de participation des employes aux
February 21, 1975

benefices le 31 decembre 1971 et que le fiduciaire a fait le choix
prevu au paragraphe (4.1), ou
b) n'etait pas regie par un regime de participation des employes
aux benefices"
Amendment (Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 98 as amended carry?
Clause 98, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 99 agreed to.
On clause 99.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Chairman, clause 99 deals with registered retirement savings plans. Has the Department of Finance accumulated statistics on how many people take advantage of registered retirement savings plans and what type of people they are, in terms of income? I am a little concerned about providing a tax loophole for someone who has wealth. Registered retirement savings plans can be written off up to a maximum of $4,000 a year. As hon. members know, most Canadians cannot afford to do that. Members of parliament can write off Canada Pension Plan contributions and parliamentary pension plan contributions which amount to $1,440 this year. They can also invest up to $4,000 in a registered retirement savings plan and write that off. If you total that, it comes to approximately $5,500. Have statistics been compiled with regard to the people who take advantage of these plans, their income brackets, and so on?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, we can get the hon. member some totals. I do not know whether we can get for him the income classes affected. The statistics came in by computer a little late on election night.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Election night?


John Napier Turner: The hon. member's riding result was conclusive too early. I now have an answer for the hon. member for York-Simcoe. There were 92,886 corporations claiming the small business deduction in 1972, the latest year for which figures are available.


David Orlikow: Will the minister explain the purpose of permitting such a high amount to be invested in registered retirement savings plans and used when computing income tax? The limit of $4,000 can only be used by those in the high income bracket. These people would be in the 40 to 50 per cent tax bracket. They are already among the wealthiest people in Canada. These people enjoy the highest standard of living of anybody in this country, yet if I understand this correctly they are permitted to invest up to $4,000 in a retirement plan and not pay any income tax on that amount.


Donald W. Munro: It is a calculated risk.


David Orlikow: The hon. member says it is a calculated risk. However, we are talking about people with an income which permits them to afford the risk. If these people were not permitted to deduct this large amount from their income tax, according to my rough calculations they would pay between $1,200 and $2,000 a year. The mass of
Income Tax
the Canadian people, the millions who pay no income tax, as well as those in the lower income tax bracket, have no opportunity to make a deduction as a result of this clause. If they do belong to a pension plan of some kind, the contribution is so small that the deduction they are permitted might not amount to more than $100.
This is just one more illustration of the way our tax system operates. In fact, we are not moving any closer to a more equitable society than we have in the past. Without again putting the precise figures on record, the figures which we get each year from Statistics Canada clearly indicate that the percentage of the gross national product which goes to the bottom one-fifth of the income earners of this country has not increased for a quarter of a century. Speaking from memory, the bottom one-fifth of the income earners in this country get something in the neighbourhood of 4 per cent of the gross national product, while the top one-fifth get close to ten times that amount.
The reason for this is our income tax laws. With the kind of Minister of Finance we have, they are constantly being changed. I do not say this is the purpose of this minister and I do not want to impute motives or say he is doing it deliberately; however, the end result of what this Minister of Finance and his predecessors have done is to increase the disparity between the haves and the have-nots in this country. Will the minister explain why he is making this figure so high?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not change the figure. Aside from a few technical amendments, all it does is allow the husband or wife who is the income earning spouse to transfer his or her eligibility to a fund for that spouse. It does not change the income limit at all. The limit is still $4,000.


David Orlikow: Will the minister explain why we have the high figure of $4,000? I am sorry that I do not have the details with me, but I can get them and discuss this matter with the minister later. However, I have been told that a husband who is the income earner could borrow from a bank in December, 1974, for example, put the money into a registered retirement savings plan in the name of his wife, get the tax credit for that, and in 1975 pay back the money, dissolve the plan and still have the tax benefit. I am not sure if I have explained this correctly. Has the attention of the minister or his department been drawn to the type of possibility I have just raised?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, the figure of $4,000 was set as a tax reform when the House passed the bill effective January 4, 1972. As I recall from listening to my predecessor, Mr. Benson, you have the deductible pension plans, $2,500 maximum by the employer and $2,500 maximum by the employee, for a total of $5,000. On a registered retirement savings plan for an individual, we put it somewhat below that, at $4,000. There was a correlation. Of course, because of the erosion of the dollar since then, the effective amount of the tax reform has been minimized. In so far as abuse is concerned, we watch that very closely indeed. If there is any abuse of the registered retirement savings plan, we will close the loopholes. We are conscious of that.

Income Tax


Mr. Dupras:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a question to the minister just to check one point.
I should like to know whether, considering the erosion of the dollar the minister mentioned two minutes ago, there is a possibility that this amount of $4,000 might be increased to $5,000?


John Napier Turner: You know, Mr. Chairman, indexing may be a contagious concept, but it is not that contagious. Only some exemptions have been indexed, such as the old age security pensions. For the time being, I believe Parliament is willing to fix the amount from time to time through specific amendments brought before the House.


Maurice Dupras: I thank the minister for his explanation.


Gérald Laniel: The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.


Some hon. Members:: Leader! Leader!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I should like to address a question to the minister. A number of those who wish to contribute to an RRSP will do so by mail and the deadline for taking advantage of the tax benefits for 1974 is February 28. Because of present postal uncertainties it is doubtful whether some applicants will be able to take advantage of the plan. Would the minister consider extending the deadline so that mail distribution problems will not prevent taxpayers from taking advantage of this concession?


John Napier Turner: When the hon. lady refers to mail distribution problems I trust she is spelling the first word "m-a-i-1". I wish to assure her that the welcome we gave her on this side was not an example of patronizing chauvinism. It was to equalize the welcome we gave this morning to the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Your turn is coming, John.


An hon. Member:: Let's give a cheer for the leader.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I want to say to the
committee I probably deserved that! I might tell the hon. member for Annapolis Valley that I shall be in his riding in a few weeks and that I shall have a few things to say about him when I get there. As to the question which was directed to me, I shall take up the matter with my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue. I think the hon. lady has a point.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I have a question dealing with the Registered Retirement Savings Plan. The minister has undoubtedly received letters from those who are experiencing frustration over the circumstances they encounter when

they are called upon to take out annuities. A person pays in for a number of years. Then, as he approaches the age of 71, he must shop around to find an insurance company to arrange for the annuity he will draw for the remainder of his life. Some of the people affected are now finding that the annuity is much less than they had anticipated. But they must either withdraw the money and pay the full tax on it or, alternatively, leave it in the hands of an insurance company which, they believe, is unwilling to pay them an equitable annuity.
An Ontario taxpayer raised this question with the minister in a letter written, I believe, on January 24. He says the government of Canada passed a law some years ago under which a worker was allowed to put aside from his earnings a stipulated amount in a retirement savings plan, tax on which was deferred. The writer of the letter went to say that he thought this was a useful proposition, acted accordingly, and has accumulated $12,000. But here is where the plan went sour. He says:
I have to put it into an annuity before I am 71, next May 3, 1975. I have called for bids from insurance companies and the best bid I got was $128 a month guaranteed for ten years, or, if I live longer than 81, until death. I will draw a total of $1,544 a year. By putting $12,000 in debentures at the going rate I could draw $1,290 a year and still the $12,000 would be intact for any emergency such as prolonged sickness.
I am told my $12,000 would double itself in less than eight years and I would have to live to be 130 to use up all the $12,000 at the going rate of interest. If I draw the money out and invest it in debentures I will have to pay income tax on the $12,000 in one year. The insurance company knows this; that is where the rip-off is. If trust companies could compete the story would be different because of competition.
This man goes on to say he is at a loss to know what to do. May I ask the minister whether he has received complaints of this type and whether he has any advice to give to people in this situation? Has the department considered authorizing some program by which a taxpayer on retirement could obtain the full benefit of the money put aside and not be obliged to go into what he might consider to be an inequitable annuity scheme?


John Napier Turner: A retirement savings plan is really related to a pension plan. Since the contributions are deductible the capital amount is taxable, when taken out in a lump sum. The taxpayer can either withdraw it in a lump sum, or he can turn it into an annuity in which case he is only taxable on the annuity receipts. Unless we were to look at the entire pension field we would have to leave RRSPs as they are. We are fully aware of the situation to which the hon. member has referred, and we have received a good deal of correspondence to the same effect as the letter he quoted.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Would it not be possible to allow a person caught in this situation to set up a trust with an appropriate trust company, and operate a self-administered plan under which the money would remain intact while the individual got the benefit of realistic interest rates?


John Napier Turner: The concept of a self-administered fund differs, of course, from the concept of a pension fund. That is where we would find ourselves in trouble from an administrative point of view. Without minimizing the situation to which the hon. member has referred, I say again that I cannot cure it unless we look at the whole of the pension field.
February 21, 1975


Mr. Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: The problem here is one of interest rates. The law requires these Canadians to wind up their plans by the time they reach the age of 71, and since they are effectively precluded from taking advantage of the higher interest rates available I think it is proper to ask that consideration be given to changing this rule. I suggest this could be handled in much the same way as securities are held under the present rules governing Registered Retirement Savings Plans; securities are held by trustees and are not accessible to the individual.
My question to the minister is this: why does he see such a difficulty in having a continuing trustee administer a plan after the age of 71 when all that the taxpayer wants in these instances is income paid out, and the income would be equal to, or in some cases greater than, the income available to him from an annuity?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the difficulty which the hon. gentleman reflects is that the RRSP has become, in a lot of people's minds, a private savings plan. It was originally conceived as a pension plan which, instead of being funded jointly by employer and employee, was funded primarily by an individual, though it was oriented toward the pension concept. If we were to revise it, we would have to look at a whole new set of concepts; that is our difficulty. We have really put the plan on the books now as a unilateral pension plan.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Perhaps I could ask a final question, Mr. Chairman. Does the minister see it in the same way as I and some taxpayers do, and that is that the government, under the present rules, is giving a benefit to the issuers of these annuities and is penalizing the very people whom it sought to serve in the first place by establishing these plans?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, that depends on the interest rates of the day. We will be reviewing the whole pension field, including interest rates and the effect they have on annuities.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I rise only for a minute. I hope the minister will not say that I am asking him to do something that he has already agreed to do, and that I do not need to repeat my request. In view of what he has just said, I press the point about asking for a review of the position of the pension plan of the International Typographical Union in so far as it affects Canadians who are members of that union.
What prompts me to get to my feet is the minister's statement a moment ago that registered retirement savings plans are, in effect, unilateral plans. The International Typographical Union has that type of plan. Members who are working put money into a fund out of which pensions are paid to those who are retired. There is no employer or anybody else matching the contributions. It seems to me to be unfair that the contributions to that plan are questioned in terms of their deductibility. I thanked the minister the other day for his assurance that he would look into that matter.
Income Tax


John Napier Turner: Yes, Mr. Chairman, and I reiterate it. One of the happiest things that has ever happened to that union is that somehow the hon. gentleman put his thumb in some printer's ink.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 100.
John Napier Turner: May I put before the committee the amendment that was circulated to clause 100, which is on pages 243 and 244. I want to correct a typographical error in paragraph (a) and to segregate the registered home ownership savings plan from the educational savings plan. Therefore I move;
That clause 100 of Bill C-49 be amended
(a)	by striking out line 15 on page 243 and substituting the following: "or capital losses other than from the disposition of"
and
(b)	by striking out lines 20 to 23 on page 244 and substituting the following:
"and subsequent taxation years."
(3) Section 146.2 of the said Act as enacted by this section is applicable to the 1974 and subsequent taxation years except that in its application to the 1974 taxation year the references therein to "60 days" shall be read as "90 days" and where a contribution is made to a registered home ownership savings plan before April 1, 1975, the plan shall be deemed to have been registered on January 1, 1975 and the contribution shall be deemed to have been made on that date."
This extends the registered home ownership savings plan qualifying date to April 1, 1975, and I will ask my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, to see what he can do with the RRSP's.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I have one question, Mr. Chairman. In the French text there is reference to 90 days-"90 jours"- whereas in the English text it says 60 days. What is the reason for that?


John Napier Turner: There is not doubt, Mr. Chairman, that bilingualism has its advantages. The hon. member is right. It should read quatre-vingts-dix jours en frangais, as well as "90 days" in the English version. I think the hon. gentleman has displayed a facility that should get him into the leadership battle over there.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, a moment ago the Minister of Finance made reference to my previous involvement with printer's ink. I was a little surprised that so soon after that he referred to this amendment as correcting a typographical error. I do not see any typographical error there. It is a technical error.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct some questions to the minister regarding RHOSP and to ask for some clarification of the plan itself. I think it has raised a number of questions in the minds of people who would like to take advantage of it.
First of all I should ask how many people living in rented accommodation with their families and who hope to purchase a home-the situation in which many potential home buyers find themselves-will in fact be able to save $1,000 a year so as to take advantage of this plan. The

February 21, 1975
Income Tax
program seems to offer a number of tax advantages to people already in the higher income tax brackets but does little to improve the position of low income families seeking accommodation. For example, as I understand the bill, a house now held in joint ownership could be transferred to registration solely in, say, the wife's name. The husband could then set up a registered home ownership savings plan in his own name, save up to $10,000 which is tax exempt over a ten year period, and then proceed to buy the house from his wife. She at that point could establish a RHOS plan of her own to buy furnishings or a new house.
In effect this couple has had the advantage of a $20,000 tax saving, perhaps without any house even coming on the market or having actually exchanged hands. If that is the intent of the bill, or if the bill does permit this to take place, it would seem that it militates against those who are not in this preferred financial position at the outset. Would the minister comment on whether or not this is possible?


John Napier Turner: We have tried to make this incentive for accommodation as generous as possible, particularly for young couples who have not previously owned a home, and what the hon. member suggests is potentially possible. We have treated husbands and wives as separate people under this legislation, giving the same incentive to the wife as to the husband by treating each spouse equally in allowing transferability, if necessary, between them, and also recognizing that if each spouse works, or is in the labour market, the $1,000 a year maximum applies to each for a total of $2,000. In other words, in terms of equality of status we have reflected it in this particular piece of legislation.
Depending on the income level, it may be that people will be able to deduct up to $200, $250 or $500. This all depends on the income level, a couple's savings plans and priorities. This is a new and revolutionary concept and we will have some teething troubles. We will be watching it very carefully, but we have leaned on the side of generosity to ensure that young people are induced to save for their own accommodation.
Having regard to those who have not got that income potential, my colleague, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, supported by the Department of Finance, has been given an expanded budget for assistance to home ownership plans, for multi-unit housing, both rental and ownership, and higher leverage incentives to the private sector. We are dealing with both areas at the same time. What we really want to do with this particular measure is help those with income potential by giving them the means, added to by the taxation system, to provide for their own accommodation, or furnishings for their accommodation.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I thank the minister for his explanation, but I am still not at all sure that the people who are in the greatest need of housing will benefit from either plan. Nevertheless, I should like to ask the minister if he would clarify for us more extensively what he intends to include as furnishings. This could very well become a bone of contention if it is not spelled out very precisely. As I understand it, furnishings are to be listed in the regulations, and I am

wondering if the items listed will be narrowly defined. Perhaps the minister would give us some idea of the sort of things he has in mind.
When the minister refers to furnishings we realize that he obviously intends that to apply to furniture, carpets, drapes and so on, but does it include such things as linens, dishes, appliances and pianos? Does the minister intend to define this in some meaningful way so that it is perfectly understood what items can be clarified as furnishings for the purpose of the plan?
I would like to go further than that by asking him if he intends to allow items which in some cases might be classified as repairs? For instance, will this plan cover the purchase of a new furnace for an existing home, and will it cover insulation, new wiring and new plumbing? It would seem to me that there is a real need to include these items in the plan. I would suggest that many young couples start out by buying a modest dwelling as a first home, perhaps even an existing dwelling that may need repairs. Would the minister provide some clarification as to whether this kind of repair or renovation will be allowed, because in many cases this could be classified as furnishings. Are these to be included under RHOSP?


John Napier Turner: The simple answer to the last part of the question is no, this is not a renovation or repair plan, but a plan to encourage people who have not owned a home to buy or furnish a new home. As to the definition of furnishings, this will be defined by regulation and will include such things as furniture, household appliances, curtains and drapes. I doubt very much if it will cover the utensil field.
These regulations will be published and deposited under the Statutory Instruments Act. They will be available to hon. members at the standing committee which reviews that act. If the hon. member finds that the list is not extensive enough under the definition of furnishings she will have an opportunity to challenge it at that time. I am trying to give her the thrust of the plan, which is really to encourage the purchase of new homes, and furnishings have been put in as an ancillary item. Furnishings will include the major permanent items in a home, but will not go as far as to include utensils.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: As I read this clause of the bill I understand it to apply to purchasers of existing dwellings as well as new homes, but the minister has just referred to new homes. Am I correct in that?


An hon. Member:: He said it twice.


John Napier Turner: The hon. lady is correct. It is the first purchase of a home, not necessarily a new construction.


Walter David Baker: It could be the first purchase of a new home?


John Napier Turner: In reply to the hon. member for Hamilton West, if I did own a home and I wanted to move to Hamilton and purchase his home and it was for the first time, I would be eligible for the RHOSP.


Mr. Alexander:: You couldn't afford it.
February 21, 1975


John Napier Turner: No, I really could not afford to buy the hon. gentleman's home.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You are quite right.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Chairman, I realize that I am interrupting my colleague, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, but on this very narrow point I heard the minister say is was for the first purchase of a home, but the way I read this legislation it restricts it to one who does not now own a home. He could have previously owned two or three homes, however. Would the minister clarify that point?


John Napier Turner: It does not necessarily have to be the first home you have ever owned, but you cannot own a home now if you are going to take advantage of it.


Donald W. Munro: Then don't move to Hamilton.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you move to Ottawa?


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, perhaps later if I get the opportunity I should like to deal generally with this Registered Home Ownership Savings Plan, RHOSP, or whatever it is called. For the moment I have a narrow point I should like to raise in relation to the answer the minister has just given to questions posed by my colleagues to the right.
Supposing a person owns a home and decides to convey it to a private company, which perhaps he incorporates himself, so that he is no longer the owner, and in the meantime rents the property from that private ownership, and then decides to buy a new home under this savings plan-could he get away with that, or would the fact that he had owned the house before preclude him?


John Napier Turner: I do not know whether the hon. member is still in practice, but all we are talking about is $1,000 exemption. If the hon. member were to play that game by transferring his home to a corporation he might be successful in that game to the extent of the $1,000 a year, but he would lose his principal residence exemption for the tax-free disposition of the home. I really doubt that he would want to move that way.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I would like the minister to answer my question. I think the answer is yes, but my friend says that if I were in practice I might know of some way of getting away with that.


John Napier Turner: That is not what I said.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I do not happen ever to practise in that particular way, but I still want to know whether, so far as this tax is concerned, he qualifies if he has disposed of it to a corporation.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: What you need is a lawyer.


John Napier Turner: What the hon. member says is possible, but he would lose his principal residence
Income Tax
exemption for capital gains. I doubt whether it would be worthwhile for him.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of additional points I would like to raise with the minister. Some confusion has been created in this bill as to who would be able to administer the RHOSP. The interpretation of the bill would indicate that these plans would only operate through trust companies, whereas the minister's statements would seem to indicate that it was the intention of the government to have the plans operate through banks or other financial institutions in the same way that registered retirement savings plans do. The minister has indicated through the press earlier that he hopes that the trust companies would come to an arrangement on this with the banks. Could the minister tell the House now whether any satisfactory arrangement has been reached?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, first of all RHOSP can only be administered by a life insurance company or a trust company. Under RHOSP, banks operate on the same basis with trust companies. The difficulty as between RISP and RHOSP is that the fiduciary relationship is far stronger under the RHOSP. As to the RISP, all a trust company or an insurance company has to do is to take the money, invest it, and return it at the termination of the period at age 71 to the depositor, either in the form of a lump sum or converted into an annuity.
But the trust relationship or fiduciary relationship under RHOSP is far more specific. The money can only be paid out for deductible purposes for the purchase of a home if the depositor does not currently own a home, or for purposes of furnishing a home. Therefore the fiduciary relationship is far more clear-cut. For that reason we have provided in the legislation that the vehicle for the fund be a licensed trustee under the provincial legislation. Whatever arrangement those trustees want to make, whether they are caisses populaires, which are registered for trustee purposes under the provincial legislation, or whatever the fiduciary relationship is, it is up to that fiduciary agency to supply its own delegation and enforcement of the trust; We are concerned that, from the taxpayer's point of view, those be not abused.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: appreciate what the minister has had to say, but the question I had was based on the press report in the Globe and Mail of February 11 which said that the Minister of Finance had asked trust companies to review their decision not to act as trustees for RHOSPs being offered by the chartered banks. It went on to say:
In an interview, Mr. Turner said he hopes to have RHOSPs offered as widely as possible and has asked his officials to communicate this to the Trust Companies Association of Canada.
Then it went on to say that the minister replied; "I'll see how they react". I am asking if the minister has had a reaction, and what that has been?


John Napier Turner: Yes, my assistant deputy minister, who has been good enough to accompany me here in the House, has had conversations with the Trust Companies Association of Canada. They have told him that while the trust industry is confident of its ability

February 21, 1975
Income Tax
to market the plan, its members are willing to enter into agency arrangements with other financial institutions now in RRSP business that now have customers interested in participating. Such arrangements would have to be worked out on an individual basis and might include agreements to deposit funds. Trust companies hope to co-operate with the purpose of this legislation, and we have that undertaking from them.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: There is another point I would like to raise with the minister. In proposed section 146.2(l)(e) on page 237 of this Bill "owner-occupied home" is defined as "a housing unit or a share of the capital stock of a co-operative housing corporation" etc. I wonder if the minister would clarify whether a mobile home would be included under this definition because, as he must be aware, many families who cannot afford housing of any other kind at current prices are turning to large, fixed, mobile homes for shelter. If this plan is to be of benefit to low income earners, it should undoubtedly apply to the purchase of a mobile home. Will the minister clarify whether mobile homes are subsumed under the definition of "owner-occupied home" in this bill?


John Napier Turner: The hon. member is right, they are.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: There is one final question I would like to put to the minister. I am concerned about the fact that while an individual can make a provision for his or her RHOSP saving to be paid to the spouse in the event of death, as I interpret the bill, he or she cannot designate children as beneficiaries. This seems to be a clear and unnecessary discrimination against widows, widowers, and single parent families.
I would point out that at the moment there are some 600,000 single parent families in Canada. If a single parent has been saving under this sort of plan for a number of years, but dies before he can take advantage of it, it seems only fair to allow that individual to pass the benefits on to his or her children. Would the minister take this opportunity to clarify what ability an individual will have to pass the money saved under this program on to his children on the event of his death, and will he consider making it possible for children to be included as possible beneficiaries on the same terms accorded a spouse under clause 2(c)(i) and clause 2(b)?


John Napier Turner: Not in his lifetime because the deductibility comes from the taxpayer, and it is the taxpayer who has to purchase the home. But if, before the home is purchased and the fund is built up, the taxpayer dies, then the proceeds are transmitted to the estate. There is no problem, but the taxable deduction cannot be transferred.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I have a couple of questions, Mr. Chairman, and I want to clarify some points found within the minister's press release. It is indicated here that the contributor must be a Canadian resident. I would like amplification of that in terms of residency. I do not know where I got this press release, but it indicates several of the criteria which have to be met. It says that only one plan may be established in a lifetime. I was wondering

how the department would check on this, how will it be able to determine whether it is one plan in a lifetime?


John Napier Turner: The answer to the hon. member's two questions are, first, yes, it is a once in a lifetime plan. It can only be used once by the same taxpayer. Second, Canadian residency would be defined according to the general definition of residency in the Income Tax Act. Of course the difficulty of administering that lies with my friend, the Minister of National Revenue, who will have to enforce it.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Chairman, I was delighted when this plan was brought forward by the minister, particularly since almost exactly two years ago in my maiden speech in the House I brought to the attention of the minister the plight of young married people who were both working and paying taxes at the highest possible rates, at a time when they were struggling to set up a home and establish themselves. I thought when I first heard the minister announce his plan that he might have been listening that day and that something was going to happen to help these very young people I was talking about.
However, after examination and hearing the questions today and the minister's answers, I think I am correct in my assumption that this plan will not help the very people I was talking about and the very people I thought the minister and his government were planning to help. I say that because the only people who will be able to benefit under this plan are those who can set aside $1,000 or $2,000 or, in fact, any dollars from their incomes in order to take advantage of this plan.
We thought maybe the proposal would help the construction industry by allowing it to build new houses, first time homes. Now it has been revealed that the taxpayer is not required to buy a new house, and the taxpayer may have owned any number of houses before he registers his home ownership savings plan. I suggest to the minister that his plan seems to offer assistance to the wealthy, and any old millionnaire who may have owned umpteen houses in his lifetime and presently lives in an apartment building can take advantage of this plan. I want to know if that is what the government planned to do.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the question was a very important one. Perhaps the minister would like it repeated.


John Napier Turner: I have no comment on that, but I can hardly conceive of an old millionnaire living in an apartment in Shaughnessy Heights using this gimmick to get back into a house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Chairman, I only used the millionnaire as a ludicrous example. Let us use as an example one of the deputy ministers in the minister's government.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Lots of millionnaires there.
February 21, 1975


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: One would have to be, at least in the office of the Prime Minister, in order to have enough money left over. The point is that the plan is available to any person who has owned any number of houses in the past. It has been illustrated by a question but by my hon. colleague from Kingston and the Islands that trading between spouses can go on, so that two spouses can take advantage of this plan. A wealthy person of whatever residence-not all wealthy people live in Shaughnessy; some live in Westmount-can take advantage of this plan. I do not think that is what the government intended, and I am asking the minister if his plan was intended to benefit these people or if it was a plan to benefit the young people of the country who are struggling to obtain a house?


John Napier Turner: Primarily the young people, Mr. Chairman. It would be virtually impossible to administer if we were to insist that the taxpayer had never owned a home. We have a voluntary assessment situation. One can check whether the taxpayer at the moment does or does not have a house. To check every taxpayer as to whether he ever owned a house would make the assessment and the administration of this proposal virtually impossible.
My second response to the hon. gentleman is that people really do not organize their affairs in order to move in and out of houses, particularly at the income range the hon. gentleman was describing, to take advantage of this type of exemption, which is really of primary interest only to young people who need it when building up a family.


John Gilbert: Mr. Chairman, it is a rather happy coincidence that we are discussing this particular section of the Income Tax Act at this time in view of the serious housing crisis in Canada, and I am just going to remind the minister of his budget speech of November 18 where he pointed out the seriousness of the housing situation. He then set forth the registered home savings plan, and said:
... this plan will provide an important new source of mortgage funds to finance the construction of the new housing we require in this country.
I am going to remind the Minister of Finance that the Minister of State in charge of housing has indicated that we need 210,000 homes as a target for 1975, and at this stage CMHC has just issued a statement with regard to the January starts, which says:
Housing starts during January were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 175,700 for all areas according to preliminary figures released today by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. These figures compare with the rate of 177,500 in December, 174,600 in November, and 177,300 in October.
I hope that the Minister of Finance realizes that there is a downward trend and that we are not even coming close to reaching the target of 210,000. The Minister of State for Urban Affairs in his speech on February 3 to the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada said that we must look at the situation squarely; that we do have a serious challenge to meet; that we have to get this industry moving again; and that we must produce 210,000 new starts this year just to meet growing need and to prevent conditions from becoming worse.
He also indicated in that speech that some private forecasters were saying that housing starts could drop as low
Income Tax
as 172,000 in 1975, and he indicated that at the end ol January we were achieving in the area of about 170,000 to 175,000 housing starts. This raises a very serious question with regard to the approach of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of State for Urban Affairs with regard to some of the gimmicks they are using to increase housing starts in Canada and to alleviate the serious housing situation. I am inclined to think that this gimmick with regard to the Registered Home Ownership Savings Plan is really a joke to attract rich people across the country and to give them substantial tax savings.
I would like to ask the minister in what way will we increase mortgage moneys with regard to the housing problem. I do not think that the problem at this stage is a shortage of mortgage moneys. I think the real problem is a shortage of housing starts and tremendously high rents and interest rates. I would like to ask the minister just how his proposal helps to reduce the cost of housing across the country. This measure really helps the rich because a couple from a moderate income family at best can save about $200, and on a saving of $200 the tax saving will be about $40 to $50. But someone in the upper income group can save $1,000, and the tax saving will be between $400 and $500.
I am going to draw a comparison between this program and the registered retirement savings plan. In 1972 83 per cent of those who made contributions to registered retirement savings plans had incomes over $10,000, and 60 per cent earned over $15,000. In the province of Manitoba 11 per cent of those earning between $9,000 and $9,999 contributed to a registered retirement savings plan, while 48 per cent of those earning between $20,000 and $25,000 contributed. The simple reason is that there is a greater opportunity for middle and upper income people to save, and it is a greater opportunity for tax savings.
This gimmick should be exposed for what it is worth, because it is really worth very little to moderate and low income people. But it certainly helps middle and upper income people. I think that the minister should be required to answer just how this affects the mortgage supply when the moneys are probably in the bank now. Banks and trust companies are using those moneys, so how does that increase the supply or decrease the price of housing?
This morning I asked the Minister of Finance some questions about the housing situation in Ontario. The minister of housing for that province has indicated that drastic cuts in federal housing programs will directly affect senior citizens and public housing starts in the province. In an article in this morning's Globe and Mail the Ontario housing minister is quoted as saying:
Funds for public housing are down in Ottawa's allocations from $78 million to $50.4 million. Co-operative housing groups building rental accommodation will receive $55.8 million in federal mortgages, down from $65 million last year-although for ownership units such groups will receive $15.9 million, up from $10 million last year.
And the federal government will cut the money available for land assembly and development to $35 million from $55 million.
The programs of the federal government are having an adverse effect on public housing, co-operative housing and land assembly, and the minister attempts to bring forth

February 21, 1975
Income Tax
this registered home savings plan as a cure-all for the housing crisis in Canada. I heard him say that this is going to be a revolutionary step, but instead it is only one of the gimmicks in his grab bag of tricks. I always considered the Minister of Finance to be a blue Liberal, but he is becoming a red one. Mr. Chairman, this is a poor way to become a red Liberal. Thank goodness he is not NDP because we certainly would not bring forth a program like this to solve the housing crisis.
When housing starts drop from a projected 210,000 down to 170,000 in November, December and January, the government should be taking steps to correct the situation. Surely the minister cannot claim that this measure will increase the flow of money into the mortgage field, cut the decline in housing starts, and decrease the cost of money? I should like him to explain how the program will effect an increase in starts and how it could decrease the price of housing.
The minister tried to avoid this question this morning when I indicated to him the serious drops in land assembly, co-operative housing and public housing in Ontario. The minister helps to frame the budget of CMHC and helps to allocate the distribution of those moneys, but this morning he was not aware of the serious drops in the three groups I have named. Somebody has to accept responsibility, and if it is not the Minister of State for Urban Affairs then it must be the Minister of Finance. I should like him to tell us how this measure is going to help mortgage funds, increase starts and bring down the cost of housing.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, on several occasions the hon. gentleman has heard the initiatives of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs enunciated. When we get this bill under way we will get into the AHOP legislation and some of the other leverage legislation which will allow the private market to get in here. This will help the housing market in two ways. It is not a cure-all, and we never said it was. This is one measure particularly to help young people to save for their own accommodation. By doing that it converts some consumption into savings. It helps the demand for housing, which is slack at the moment, and the funds channelled into this plan will undoubtedly be invested in the mortgage market thus providing more funds for mortgages and having a beneficial effect on interest rates.


John Gilbert: Can the minister tell the House what assurance he has that moneys directed into the registered home savings plan will be used for mortgage moneys? I do not see any such assurance in the legislation, and I believe that the banks and trust companies are going to direct the moneys into those investments that bring the highest return. They are surely not going to direct them into the Assisted Home Ownership Plan.
What will be accumulated in the first and second years is so small that it is hardly worth worrying about, Mr. Chairman. Surely the best approach would be to get the banks, trust companies and insurance companies to direct a percentage of their portfolios into housing. Then the government could specialize in social housing, public housing, co-operative housing and land assembly instead

of taking the measures it is taking at the moment which harm these important fields.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what we feel will happen with the increase in mortgage lending by the banks, insurance companies and the trust companies. And by the way the trust companies have indicated that funds from this source will be invested primarily in the mortgage market, attracted by the higher interest rates and subsidies under the AHOP plan to reduce them to concessional rates for those in need of assisted home ownership. The hon. gentleman should recall that the private market in mortgages has gone from $2 billion to $6 billion in four years. I want to assure him that this might work even better than he hopes, and we will have that money for social housing.
There have been discussions, Mr. Chairman, among the parties, and since we are close to four o'clock and the enterprising bill of the hon. member for Hamilton-Went-worth might not take too much time, if he concludes-


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Is the bill or the hon. member enterprising?


John Napier Turner: Everything the hon. member touches has a certain touch!


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John Napier Turner: Perhaps if we conclude the private members' hour early the House would agree to revert to clause by clause consideration of this bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, it is correct that there have been discussions along those lines. We would be prepared to come back into committee of the whole and work like beavers on this bill with one proviso, that is, that we would not this day return to any of the clauses that were stood, the ones dealing with resource taxation and so on.


Gerald William Baldwin: We feel the same way, Mr. Chairman. After the Minister of Finance sees how rapid progress is made, he may be persuaded to move this bill along rapidly too.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: I am all for that.
Progress reported.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, notices of motions and private bills.
Is it agreed that all bills preceding Bill C-373 shall stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
February 21, 1975



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr.   Sean@: that Bill C-373, to provide for the recognition of the Beaver (Castor canadensis) as a symbol of the sovereignty of the Dominion of Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Madam Speaker, my first words in support of Bill C-373 must be those of appreciation to hon. members in all parts of this House who have kindly given the necessary unanimous consent for its presentation at this time.
In asking that it be called for debate I hope to indicate my sense of concern that we quickly correct an oversight of history by recognizing the beaver as one of the symbols of the sovereignty of our country.
In the hope that the favourable and co-operative attitude demonstrated so far toward Bill C-373 will continue today, and that hon. members will advance this legislation, I shall limit my remarks, although one could certainly speak at length in support of this positive and non-partisan measure. Simply, 1 propose to explain just what this bill attempts to do, to correct some mistaken impressions about it, and then to entrust its fate to the wisdom of this House.
Bill C-373 seeks to give official recognition to a fact of our Canadian heritage, for it is a straightforward fact that the beaver is one of our national symbols. This bill neither creates a new national symbol nor does it replace or in anyway lessen the maple leaf, the coat of arms, or any other symbol of our heritage.
Every man and woman holds dear certain memories and nostalgic reminders of his and her country which cannot be erased easily, if at all. These ties of home are among the most natural and enduring of feelings. In nature each creature has its own habitat, which it protects with a fierce love. In Canada, where people from so many different lands and cultures have come together, what can we all identify with if not those symbols adopted by Canadian pioneers and taken to our hearts, even if we be newcomers to this nation? Search deep into the history of Canada and you will find that the strong, tireless and industrious beaver has always been symbolic of our northern homeland.
The beaver was a clan sign for Indian tribes and was carved on their totem poles. The beaver was on the coat of arms of the Hudson's Bay Company, and as long ago as 1632 was used in Canadian heraldry when Charles the First approved its use for Sir William Alexander, the founder of Nova Scotia. The beaver was on our first Canadian stamp to have a picture.


An hon. Member:: Before the Queen?


Sean Patrick O'Sullivan: Before the Queen.
The Canadian Beaver

Madam Speaker, the beaver appears on our coins and also on the arms of the City of Montreal. No fewer than 14 regiments of our Canadian armed forces have the beaver as their insignia. For all the young Canadians who took part in the devastating wars of the 20th century, it is a very familiar symbol. Far away from Canadian lands, those young people went to the Somme, Vimy or Passchen-daele during World War I. Some of them participated in the liberation of Europe during World War II and others were in Korea. The beaver adorned the badges of Lieutenant Brillant and Corporal Kaeble, both recipients of the Victoria Cross they earned in France in 1918 and both members of the famous Royal 22nd Regiment.

The beaver was prominent in the posters urging Canadians to buy victory bonds in that defence of our freedom. The beaver is on the collar badges of the Royal Canadian Regiment whose proud motto is Pro Patria. The beaver was on the Calgary Highlanders' badge when they valiantly put down at Dunkirk in 1944.
And so on it goes, to remind all of us, to quote naturalist Frederick Bodsworth:
It is no coincidence that our national emblem is not a rising sun, a star, a hammer, a sickle, or a dragon, but a beaver and a maple leaf.
The beaver and the maple leaf. They go together, and to give due recognition to them both as symbols of our land and its heritage in no way lessens the importance of either.
There are those, Madam Speaker, who might argue that we should forget the beaver as a symbol now that Oregon has it as a state animal and New York state has a private bill before its legislature to do likewise. Obviously, we cannot prevent others from sharing our esteem for this animal as an emblem, any more than we could stop others from calling the maple leaf their own. However, all the flattery by imitation in the world cannot change the feelings of Canadians; feelings so strong that they have become a fact of Canadian life. For us the beaver is not just an animal to be placed on the back of a flag like Oregon's, or declared a state animal as might New York, but a symbol of national significance, well-founded in history and honoured by generations.
I am, of course, hopeful that the legislators of New York state will find a more suitable alternative to the beaver as their state animal. The sponsor of that proposal, a proposal of similar status to a private member's bill here, has even held back on his motion to see what action the Canadian parliament will take. I think that this courtesy on the part of Senator Bernard Smith demonstrates the friendship which exists between our two countries and the respect with which that neighbouring state will view our feelings and sense of heritage. Those feelings are indeed strong.
Since introducing this bill I have received hundreds of signatures of support, in the form of letters and petitions. Other members have indicated a similar favourable response from their constituents. What is more, officials of CBC radio estimate that over 13,000 Canadians, from every province, both territories, and in both official languages have written to Barbara Frum and Alan Maitland of the "As it Happens" program to support their conten-

February 21, 1975
The Canadian Beaver
tion that the beaver is a Canadian symbol and should be recognized as such.
This leads me to touch briefly upon another question that has been raised in connection with this bill. As is evidenced by my questions and speeches in this House, I recognize and share the concerns of Canadians everywhere about the pressing economic problems we all face. However great these problems may be, I do not agree with some that our search for their solution should automatically exclude discussion of other subjects.
I would submit that a nation's true strength is most tested, and its unity most endangered, when individuals grow fearful of the future because of economic unrest. At such times of stress it is all too easy to become overly introspective, and it is a common human failing to place blame on those nearest at hand.
Immediate concern for economic problems can blind us to our long-term goals and aspirations. The suspicion and mistrust which result can make us forget those greater things we have in common.
It is precisely in such difficult times that Canadians need to be reminded of those things we share, and of those common strengths which will ultimately see us through troubled times.
To an individual, to a nation of individuals, there must be more to life than just financial facts and figures. There must be things to touch one's soul and heart and emotions if we are to be complete persons and a whole nation. That is the importance of symbols, their special importance in times such as ours. That is the object of this bill and the special importance of the beaver to Canadians in our history, today, and for tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Ian Watson (Laprairie):: Madam Speaker, I have no reservations about agreeing with the hon. member who has just spoken that the beaver is a symbol of Canada and has been so for generations. However, I want to put on record one or two points which I believe should be considered before we take any final action on this subject.
The commercial houses of Montreal in particular, until the end of the 19th Century used the beaver on almost everything they could find to print it on. It was a symbol of Montreal, representing all the wealth which Montreal reaped from the fur trade. It meant everything to those who were in control of business in Montreal. After the turn of the Century the use of the beaver as a commercial symbol began to decline throughout Canada. Some had begun to make fun of the emblem. For example, Canadian shipping carried the beaver emblem, and it was commonly referred to around the world as the rat line. This eventually got to people, and Canadians began to back away from the use of the beaver symbol.
I am not saying we should not give the beaver symbol some kind of formal recognition, but we should examine this matter carefully before we take any action. I hope that when the committee does consider the matter it will call in experts who can explain for the benefit of members and the Canadian public the intricacies and mysteries of

heraldry and exactly how we should go about giving formal recognition to the beaver as a symbol of Canada, bearing in mind the things the hon. member would like to achieve.


Mr. Gustave Blouin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the discussion of this bill to provide for the recognition of the beaver as a symbol of the sovereignty of Canada.

However, Madam Speaker, I must say to this House that when that question was brought to my attention last fall following the introduction of the private bill by a US senator to have the beaver accepted as the emblem of the State of New York I was surprised and even disappointed that we did not have in the statutes of Canada an act to designate the beaver as national emblem.
I was under the impression that because of the use we had made of the beaver as an emblem for a very long time already, the beaver was indeed recognized in the statutes as the emblem of this country, but such is not the case.
We have been talking about the beaver for a very long time. It was even mentioned in great political debates, and I found in the archives of the government of Quebec that the Hon. J. A. Chapleau, premier of that province in 1883, was talking at that time about the political group called Les Castors as a rebel political party, and had more specifically in mind the ultraconservatives of that time.
In 1910, Sir Wilfrid Laurier made a speech in Montreal on the Castors calling them people who changed political parties, or even criticized their own party. Indeed, the beaver as an emblem has always been and still is related to our history.
Incidentally, I would like to relate an anecdote. That happened during my first year as a member of this House, in 1963, when I received in Ottawa an Indian delegation from my riding. Outside the Parliament building, after visiting the premises, a member of that delegation remarked: "There are beavers here in Ottawa." He was looking at the top of the door to the Parliament building. Indeed, at the main entrance of that majestic building a beautiful beaver is engraved in the stone.
So, Madam Speaker, as far as I am concerned, I have no objection to referring this bill to committee, and I hope it can then be given detailed consideration.


Some hon. Members:: Question!


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
February 21, 1975


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-49, to amend the statute law relating to income tax-Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)-Mrs. Morin in the chair.
B. Keith Penner: When the committee rose earlier today an amendment to clause 100 was under consideration. Shall the amendment carry?


Francis Andrew Brewin: I have a few brief remarks to make on the generality of this Registered Home Ownership Savings Plan. I come from a constituency where we are deeply concerned about housing, and naturally I have looked at this clause to see whether it will help my people there.
I have sometimes been reproved for taking perhaps too broad a perspective of my responsibilities in this House. However, for the moment I want to concentrate on this legislation as it may affect my own constituents. I regret to have to tell the minister that I do not think it will help more than a handful of them. There are very few people in my constituency who will be able to benefit from this particular provision. I think there are very few who can save up to $1,000 in a year to buy a house at present prices. There may be a handful and I do not begrudge them some income tax exemption, but there are so few that in my view this really does not amount to anything.
The real and urgent need is housing for those people whose income gives them no chance of buying a house. The minister says this provision will benefit young people. I wish it would, but I do not know very many young people in my riding who could possibly save $1,000 a year and avail themselves of this tax exemption. If there are such it is a small and exclusive group who are perfectly well able to look after their housing needs without these special exemptions from income tax.
I think every cent available should be poured into two forms of housing for which there is real need. I refer first of all to public housing with rents geared to income. I have people in my constituency who are being forced out of their houses because they cannot afford to pay the rents charged. Many of these people are elderly. Secondly, I know of young people going into co-operative housing, and more funds are needed to assist development of co-operative housing. I regret to say that I find this legislation pretty barren and useless in meeting the housing problem in my own constituency.
Another matter of concern to me which, perhaps the minister can help me on is, that as far as I can make out, if you want to take advantage of this provision you must deposit your money in a savings account in a bank, trust company or similar institution, no doubt at a fee. I do not see any arrangement made regarding the fee charged for holding these funds. Is there no machinery whereby the government itself could accept deposits, which it could then put into bonds or savings accounts that would make a reasonable return while the person concerned awaited acquisition of his new house? There is a resentment
Income Tax
among some people about being required to use these particular financial institutions to avail themselves of this provision.
The only other thing I want to say is that anybody who thinks that this legislation is a serious means of dealing with the housing crisis in this country should have his head read. It is nothing of the sort. This is tinkering. The expression the hon. member for Broadview used was that it is a gimmick, and we are not really very much interested in it. It will help a few, yes, but there will be so few in my riding that you could count them on the fingers of your hand.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Chairman, before we move on from this clause I have some questions to put to the minister. There is one thing I feel the committee should have clarified. As I understand it, a person contributing to the plan may not own a house in the year he makes a contribution. For example this means that if a person contributed to the plan in 1975 he would not be eligible to buy a house in 1975 because this would be the calendar year in which he contributed and he has retroactively disqualified himself.
Is my understanding correct, and how does this work in conjunction with the post-dated contribution down to April 1? Is this post-dated contribution treated as a payment in 1974, so that he can buy a house in 1975?


John Napier Turner: The hon. gentleman is right on both counts.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I am very encouraged. That is one of the least evasive answers we have had from the minister for some time. My second question is this: in view of that, would the minister not agree that the main impact of this program will certainly not be in 1975 or 1976 but probably in subsequent years? If a person cannot purchase a home in the year of his contribution, there will be a tendency for him to contemplate buying his home in future years. Consequently, any suggestion that this provision will have a good impact in the sense of stirring up money to be used for house purchase in 1975 is not too realistic. Does the minister agree?


John Napier Turner: Madam Chairman, the hon. member is right in the sense that the demand will gradually build up as funds accumulate. But as I have said before, this is just one element in the government's housing program. The other purpose is not only to sustain demand but to allow the tax system to help young people accumulate funds for house purchase.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Following along that line of reasoning, would the minister also not agree that the plan may take money out of the home purchase field in 1975 and 1976 because people who might have bought a home will be attracted to the plan, but instead of going out and using their available cash they will start contributing to the plan with a view to buying at a later date? As a consequence, rather than helping the 210,000 starts objective of the minister, the plan may actually work against the purchase of new homes in 1975.


John Napier Turner: Not necessarily,
Madam Chairman. The money invested will probably be

February 21, 1975
Income Tax
immediately reinvested, primarily in the mortgage market.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: With all due respect, I use the minister's favourite comment about comparing apples with oranges. When he says the money will be invested in the housing market, presumably he is referring to investment in mortgages. As I understand the main attraction of this provision, it is that it makes it relatively easy from a tax standpoint for people to accumulate money to buy equity in a house. There is the multiplier effect, the leverage given when a person puts down $10,000 to buy a $40,000 house. This is the true result that the government is trying to achieve. I suggest that saying that money invested in a mortgage company is lent out in mortgage funds, is an apples and oranges comparison.


John Napier Turner: Madam Chairman, in terms of equity there will be a gradual build-up. In terms of the debt available having an effect on the market and moving beneficently to lower interest rates, the impact will be immediate.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Then I guess there is a difference of opinion on that point. Could I now shift to subclauses (g) and (h) on pages 238 and 239. As I read these two subclauses it appears that if a person owns an interest in accommodation, which presumably is housing-I think the word used is dwelling place-he may not enter the plan, and as a result that person with an interest in residential rental property will be precluded from setting up a registered home ownership savings plan even if he himself lives in rented accommodation. I think we can understand the point the minister is trying to cover here, and perhaps I should give him the opportunity of indicating whether my understanding of these two subclauses is correct.


John Napier Turner: Yes.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In view of that, how do the revenue people intend to treat something like a real estate investment trust? Take the situation in which a person has bought into a REIT, and if the REIT in turn happens to buy an apartment building some place, would that person be precluded from coming under the Registered Home Ownership Savings Plan?


John Napier Turner: I think that the simple answer is that a real estate investment trust is not a partnership.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: That may be the simple answer for this committee, but I can assure the minister that a real estate investment trust in a technical sense is a partnership. One of the reasons for setting up a real estate investment trust is to limit the liability of the partners that are part of that trust.


John Napier Turner: If the trust is organized as a partnership then it will not qualify, but if it is a trust it is not a partnership.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Perhaps I could just touch on another point for clarification. It is my understanding that this plan will

be something both spouses can participate in, in that if a husband and wife both have the appropriate income they will both be able to contribute $10,000, and in that way the family unit, or the husband and wife, will be able to accumulate $20,000 over a period of 10 years. Is that right?


John Napier Turner: Yes, $10,000 each in his or her own plan.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Is it also correct that you could have a situation in which a husband puts his house in his wife's name and then contributes to the $10,000 plan, that is $1,000 a year for 10 years, and uses the money to furnish his wife's house? You would then have a rather interesting situation in that they both are living in the house, but it happens to be in the wife's name and the husband is able to contribute to a plan, the proceeds of which are used to furnish the house in which he is living with his wife.


John Napier Turner: If he were to buy the
house back, yes, but the house has to be registered in one name or the other. I dealt with the general concept here in answer to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands earlier this afternoon.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I am speaking about a different thing. Take the situation where the husband and wife, for their own good reasons, have the house registered in the wife's name. Is it not true that the husband could contribute to his plan and, when he wishes to collapse the plan, use the proceeds to buy furniture for his wife's home, the home that he has actually been living in?


John Napier Turner: Put that way, yes.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Is there anything wrong with the way I have put it? Is it not true that this is a type of situation that could exist under the present wording of the proposed amendment?


John Napier Turner: Yes.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Perhaps I could direct the minister's attention to sub-clauses (7) and (8) on page 241. As I understand what is written here, this is like a penalty. If someone is caught putting too much into a registered home ownership savings plan the penalty is that his plan is in effect deregistered, and he must then take into income the entire amount he has paid in, notwithstanding the fact that he may have taken out certain proceeds to buy furniture for a home. Is that correct?


John Napier Turner: That is right. There is really no reason for over-contributing. It is quite simple; the maximum is $1,000 a year.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Why was it felt necessary to be so severe? Presumably you could have a person who, through confusion, made an over-payment, and did not correct it within 120 days. If he has used part of the proceeds to buy a home why should he be taxed on that without giving him at least credit for the portion he uses, presumably in the way the government expects him to use it?
February 21, 1975


John Napier Turner: This covers quite simply $1,000 a year. That is not complicated. He gets the deductibility on the way in, and there has to be some sanction if he tries to over-deduct.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: This is a question of degree, I suppose, but I should have thought that the obvious sanction would be to require the man simply to bring back into income the amount of the over-payment and pay taxes on it, which is certainly what happens under the registered retirement savings plan. I am little surprised that this provision would have such a vicious penalty in it for a person who has, for some reason or other, over-paid. Is there any reason why a person who goes into a registered ownership savings plan should be more severely penalized for a mistake, such as I have referred to, than the person in respect of a registered retirement savings plan?


John Napier Turner: There is quite a difference. The RRSP is a pension, whereas this allows a maximum of $1,000 a year. It is not complicated, therefore a sanction is required.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 100, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 101 and 102 agreed to.
On Clause 103.
John Napier Turner: Madam Chairman, I have circulated this amendment which replaces the one tabled on February 10. The only difference is in the page reference. Otherwise the amendment is exactly the same as the one tabled. The amendment relates to Clause 103 as found at page 246, and I would move:
That clause 103 of Bill C-49 be amended by striking out lines 34 to 40 on page 246 and substituting the following:
"(6) Subsections (1) and (2) and paragraph 149(l)(v) of the said Act as enacted by subsection (4) are applicable to the 1974 and subsequent taxation years; subsection (3) and paragraph 149(l)(u) of the said Act as enacted by subsection (4) are applicable to the 1972 and subsequent taxation years; and subsection (5) is applicable after November 18, 1974."
This m -endmr at relates to the coming into force of the provisions as they apply to Clause 103.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 103, as amended agreed to.
On Clause 104.
John Napier Turner: I have circulated the following technical amendment to Clause 104, and I move:
That clause 104 of Bill C-49 be amended
(a)	by striking out line 37 on page 247 and substituting the following: "1974, 1975 and 1976 taxation years, subsection"
and
(b)	by adding thereto, immediately after line 41 on page 247, the following:
"(5) Subparagraph 157(1)(a) (i) of the said Act shall, for the 1977 and subsequent taxation years, be read as it read immediately before the coming into force of subsection (1)."
That is found on page 247 of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Income Tax
Clause 104 as amended agreed to.
Clause 105 agreed to.
On clause 106.
John Napier Turner: I move:
That clause 106 of Bill C-49 be amended
(a)	by striking out line 11 on page 248 and substituting the following: T06. (1) Paragraph 161 (4.1) (a) of the said Act is repealed and the
following substituted therefor:
"(a) the tax payable under this Part by it for the year computed without reference to section 123.2,"
(2) Section 161 of the said Act is further'
and
(b)	by striking out lines 26 and 27 on page 248 and substituting the
following:
"(3) This section is applicable to the 1974 and subsequent taxation years except that for the 1977 and subsequent taxation years paragraph 161(4.l)(a) of the said Act shall be read as it read immediately before the coming into force of this section."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 106, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 107 agreed to.
On clause 108.
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Chairman, as this clause proposes to give the right of appeal from the refusal of the minister to register an educational savings plan or a home ownership savings plan, or from his revocation of registration of those plans, would the minister give us an outline as to whether this provision is one that is also included with respect to standard registered plans? Is it a provision that is unique to the two plans to which reference is made here?


John Napier Turner: No, Madam Chairman, there are many similar provisions of appeal to the Federal Court throughout the act.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Does the Registered Retirement Savings Plan allow for the right of appeal also?


John Napier Turner: Yes, Madam Chairman.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Could the minister indicate how many appeals have been launched?


John Napier Turner: I will ask my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, or one of the officials to provide the hon. gentleman with the information.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Could the minister give us some indication of the number, whether there are many or few such appeals? I think it is relevant when we are considering the right of appeal.


John Napier Turner: The answer is that there have been no appeals.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 109 to 117 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 118.
John Napier Turner: Madam Chairman, on February 10 I tabled an amendment to clause 118. Now I

February 21, 1975
Income Tax
am moving another amendment to this clause and I propose that we not proceed with the earlier amendment. What I will be circulating now is the new amendment which differs from the earlier one in that it extends exemption for provincial borrowings for another couple of years. They were worried about withholding tax on interest on government securities. I move:
That clause 118 of Bill C-49 be amended
(a)	by striking out lines 35 and 36 on page 254 and substituting the following:
'118(.01) All that portion of clause 212(l)(b)(ii)(C) of the said Act following subclause (V) thereof is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"issued after April 15, 1966, and before 1979,"
(1) Paragraph 212(1) (b) of the said Act is further amended by striking out the word'
(b)	by striking out line 3 on page 255 and substituting the following: "1978, the interest on which is payable"
(c)	by adding thereto, immediately after line 33 on page 258, the following:
'(10.1) Paragraph 212(14)(c) of the said Act is amended by adding the word "or" at the end of subparagraph (i) thereof and by repealing subparagraphs (ii) and (iii) thereof and substituting the following therefor:
"(ii) a trust or corporation established or incorporated principally in connection with, or the principal purpose of which is to administer or provide benefits under, one or more superannuation, pension or retirement funds or plans or any funds or plans established to provide employee benefits."
(d)	by striking out lines 6 to 10 on page 259 and substituting the following:
"after 1971, subsections (2), (3), (5) and (6), (8) to (10) and (11) are applicable in respect of amounts paid or credited after November 18, 1974, other than an amount referred to in paragraph 212(13.1)(a) or subsection 212(13.2) of the said Act as"
and
(e)	by striking out line 13 on page 259 and substituting the following: "entered into before May 7, 1974, subsection (10.1) is applicable after 1974 and subsec-"


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 118, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 119 and 120 agreed to.
On clause 121.
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Chairman, I have a question for the minister on clause 121, which covers four pages and deals with timber royalties. I wonder if any part of that clause would be similar to clauses 4 and 6 which we stood.


John Napier Turner: No, Madam Chairman. Clause agreed to.
Clauses 122 to 132 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 133.


John Napier Turner: On February 10 I circulated an amendment to clause 133 to correlate the French and English versions.

I move:
That clause 133 of the French version of Bill C-49 be amended by striking out line 19 on page 281 and substituting the following:
"ploitation d'une mine" est repute comprendre et avoir toujours compris, aux fins"


B. Keith Penner: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Amendment (Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)) agreed to.
Clause 133 as amended agreed to.
Clauses 134 to 141 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 142.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Would the minister give us a brief explanation of clause 142?


John Napier Turner: The hon. gentleman, I understand, wants to call it five o'clock after passing this clause. We could do it now, but I will give him the explanation in any event because I gave an undertaking to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that at the next sitting of the House on Monday we would go back to the resource clauses.
This clause 142 applies in the first subclause to non-resident withholding tax on dividends. The second subclause applies to a life insurer's a net Canadian life investment income. Looking at subclause (1) first, section 10 of an act to amend the Income Tax Act was introduced in 1961-62 to cancel the special preferred 5 per cent rate of withholding tax which applied under Article XI (2) of the Canada-U.S. Reciprocal Tax Convention to dividends paid by a subsidiary in one country to a parent company in the other. Since December 20, 1960, such dividends have been taxed at the same rates which apply to any other dividend. By repealing this section the existing rates will continue to apply after 1975, rather than the 25 per cent rate for dividends paid to residents of non-treaty countries.
Subclause (2) is a relieving measure with respect to the coming into force of a provision of Chapter 14 of the Statutes of Canada, 1973-74, which allowed a deduction in computing the taxable investment income of a life insurer of the interest element of policies issued as registered retirement savings plans or deferred profit sharing plans. This deduction will be made available from the time of the commencement of the taxation of life insurers in 1969 rather than 1972 as provided earlier.
There was an oversight in 1969. We are repairing it as of 1969.


Donald W. Munro: If we have not proceeded to wind things up, I would like to ask if it would be possible to have read into the record the numbers of the clauses which have been stood so that we might have a means of starting off on Monday with a record of those we will be discussing. Perhaps clause 142 should be dealt with first.


John Napier Turner: I think it would be a good idea to put the committee on notice for Monday. Is the committee ready for the question to be put on clause 142?
Clause 142 agreed to.
February 21, 1975


B. Keith Penner: The hon. member wanted to know the clauses which are stood.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Start with No.
4.


B. Keith Penner: Clauses 4, 7, 9, 35, 37, 43.1, and 52 as amended.


John Napier Turner: Madam Chairman, was clause 80 agreed upon?


B. Keith Penner: There is no record of clause 80 standing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is there a record that it was agreed upon?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I believe that the intention was to stand clause 80.


B. Keith Penner: Clause 80 was stood.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Madam Chairman, could we have those numbers repeated?


B. Keith Penner: Clauses 4, 7, 9, 35, 37, new clause 43.1, clause 52 and clause 80.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Chairman, may we have confirmation of what has been under-
Income Tax
stood? On Monday will we be dealing with Bill C-49 in committee, beginning with clause 4?


John Napier Turner: Yes, that is so. It is our understanding that clause 52, which has been stood, was stood because of a sidebar heading which, in the minds of some hon. members, related to resources. It really does not relate to resources.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I agree, Madam Chairman. I think that clause 52 could be carried, if we could revert to it.


B. Keith Penner: Is it agreed that we revert to clause 52, as amended?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 52 as amended agreed to.


B. Keith Penner: It being five o'clock it is my duty to rise, report progress, and request leave to consider the bill again at the next sitting of the House.
Progress reported.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It being five o'clock the House stands adjourned until Monday at 2 p.m.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, February 24, 1975