1978-05-26

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
ANOTHER STANLEY CUP FOR LES CANADIENS!-MOTION UNDER
5.0.	43
['No.\n_________________________________________5763\nOral Questions']
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity. Considering that on Thursday, May 25, the Canadiens won a brilliant victory and once again carried off the Stanley Cup, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That congratulations be sent to the directors, coach and players for their success and for the fine way in which they contributed to the prestige of Canada in the world of hockey, where their fame is proverbial.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie).



[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter or urgent and pressing necessity, under the provisions of Standing Order 43. During Tuesday's debate on my motion calling for a special committee to be established to examine how our federal tax system is forcing Canadian businessmen to invest in the United States, the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman), in disagreeing with the motion, severely criticized Canadians who choose to invest in the United States and those who have moved there to escape excessive taxation and government regulation.
In view of the hon. member's conviction that Canadians who invest in or move to the United States are greedy, venal and less than loyal to their country, and in view of the startling fact revealed by my colleague, the hon. member for Halton-Went-worth (Mr. Kempling), to the effect that this same member has or had property and business interests in the United
States, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt):
That this House instruct the NDP House leader, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, to ask the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge to explain to the House why it is legitimate for him to have or to have had investments in the United States, but illegitimate, greedy and venal for other Canadians to have similar investments in that country.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion would require unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. My motion concerns the fact that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) has virtually admitted in committee that the recent $3 million advertising campaign against UIC cheating was designed to manipulate the Canadian people into believing that the commission was doing a good job. In view of the fact that this is not the first instance of the use of taxpayers' money by a public agency to manipulate the public politically and to pressure parliament, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That this House condemns the use of taxpayers' money for partisan political purposes by agencies such as the Unemployment Insurance Commission, the Export Development Corporation, the Anti-Inflation Board and Petro-Canada, to name only a few, and notes that if the UIC had really wanted to discourage cheating it could have circulated warnings against it inside envelopes mailed to UIC recipients.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate would require unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
May 26, 1978

Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In order that Newfoundland fishermen at Port au Port will not have to risk their lives and boats as they did last weekend when they were unable to enter the Fox Island harbour during a storm because of a sand bar which has impeded passage for more than two years, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Mel-ville ( Mr. Nystrom):
That this House instructs the Minister of Transport to undertake emergency action which will permit temporary dredging while the department awaits new tenders for permanent work, delayed last year through a technical error in awarding a contract for this project.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for discussion, pursuant to Standing Order 43, would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity concerning the several Indian treaties solemnly entered into by Her Majesty Queen Victoria. I move:
That this House declares that such treaties are in effect and their respective terms are sacred obligations which are now being deliberately evaded, diminished or denied in administration in the face of the fact that such treaties were to be continued "as long as the sun shall shine and the rivers shall flow''.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate, pursuant to the Standing Order, would require unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think it is only fair that there should be identification of members who are denying these motions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melvilie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that violence on the picket line at the Fleck manufacturing plant in Centralia is increasing, with the reported beating of men and women on the picket line by members of the Ontario provincial police, and in view of the fact that no progress is being made between members of the UAW and the management of the Fleck plant, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent):
That this House instruct the Minister of Labour to approach the premier of Ontario to encourage the management of Fleck to bargain in good faith and reduce the possibility of further violence on the picket line.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity concerning the continuing backlog in the movement of grain, the accumulation of record demurrage costs, the loss of sales and customer confidence, all of which are having a serious impact upon the Canadian economy. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That the 1976-77 Canadian Wheat Board annual report be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture to review the current situation and consider new initiatives related to grain handling and grain marketing strategies.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the presentation of such a motion for debate?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgency concerning the so-called Taschereau papers on national security that were scheduled to be made public in 1976 and
May 26, 1978

were removed from the Public Archives prior to such revelation by Major P. A. Lemieux of the Privy Council office. Recently I was informed they were returned to the archives on February 6, 1978, without public knowledge, and a further mandatory term of ten years applied before release, with a review to take place at that time. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That the Prime Minister release all details as to why Michael Pitfield, secretary to the cabinet, wrote a letter to the Public Archives ordering release extension to 1986; all reasons why the Prime Minister and the security committee of the cabinet ordered that such release be delayed; specifically, why it is considered necessary to protect the identity and testimony of certain public servants, some of whom have or are presently occupying high positions in the public service after so many years; and, finally, whether release of such evidence would be incriminating against some of the persons involved.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. My motion concerns the fall in real domestic product of 0.2 per cent in March. In view of the fact that this tends to undermine what little credibility remains in the Minister of Finance's 1978 growth target of 5 per cent, and in view of the fact that the minister has yet to make an accurate forecast during his entire career as finance minister, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies):
That this motion does not call upon the Minister of Finance for yet another bogus forecast, but demands that the minister now open his forecasting procedures to public scrutiny and that a special committee of this House be given the mandate to investigate the Department of Finance's forecasting practices.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
_________________________________________5763
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister, and it relates directly and exclusively to the way in which ministers of the Crown carry out or have carried out their responsibility to uphold the law of Canada.
As hon. members and the minister know, there was a 1972 agreement between the Department of National Revenue and the RCMP which allowed a violation of confidentiality of tax files. The McDonald royal commission yesterday heard testimony to the effect that there was a letter from a minister of national revenue, unidentified, to a solicitor general, unidentified, in which the minister of national revenue expressed the view that that agreement was against the law-that it broke the law of Canada.
I presume that the Deputy Prime Minister, having had his attention drawn to that testimony of yesterday, would have looked into this question. I would like him to tell us whether there was such a letter, whether he will table it, and what was the resolution of the position of the minister of national revenue that the 1972 agreement broke the law of Canada?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question of the Leader of the Opposition, I think I should make it clear that so far as I am aware there was no testimony, in the proper sense, put before the commission. As I understand it, there was a reference by commission counsel to a letter, and that was the extent of the proceeding.
In so far as the government is concerned, the matter is before the commission and it is not the intention of the government, as has been stated on many previous occasions, to replace the work of the royal commission. If this letter is to be adduced as evidence, then it ought to be done at the royal commission. That is the place for any other evidence or evidence from ministers, in our view.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, once again we have had the capacity of the McDonald royal commission expanded and expanded to cover up activities of this government. Apparently what we have here, according to a letter to which reference was made at that commission yesterday, is an indication that a view was expressed perhaps two years ago by a member of the cabinet of Canada that a practice approved by the cabinet of Canada was against the law. Surely, if the cabinet of Canada is condoning and accepting the breaking of the law of Canada, that is a matter for the House of Commons to inquire into.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

May 26, 1978
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Was there an expression of a department position by a minister that an agreement sanctioned by the Government of Canada was in violation of the law of Canada? Was there such a letter? If so, can the House of Commons, to which this government reports-royal commission or no-see that letter? Can the minister tell us whether it continues to be the policy of the Government of Canada to support the breaking of the law of Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think as the hon. Leader of the Opposition built his question he drew additional and unwarranted conclusions. As I understand it, what happened yesterday was that commission counsel made brief reference to a letter which had been exchanged and put a particular construction upon the letter himself.


An hon. Member:: Let's see the letter.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There is no desire on the part of the government to impede the work of the royal commission in any sense.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As far as we are concerned, we would be very pleased to have this matter fully, thoroughly and expeditiously examined before the royal commission, have whatever evidence is available put on the record, have whatever ministers may be involved in the transmission of correspondence examined before the commission, and have all the evidence brought forward. Certainly, it is not the intention of the government to replace the royal commission, nor is it the intention of the government to put on the record of the House of Commons fragments of information. I think that would be quite irresponsible and quite opposed to the work of the McDonald royal commission.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, no one has ever accused this government of trying to impede the work of the royal commission. It is attempting to use the royal commission to impede the work of the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: If the Deputy Prime Minister is worried about unwarranted interpretations of a letter from one of his colleagues to another alleging that the Government of Canada was breaking the law, the way he can resolve those concerns is to let us see the letter. If it continues to be the view of the Minister of National Revenue that that agreement is illegal, can he tell us if he has received a legal opinion from the Minister of Justice as to whether that matter is legal or illegal? He can come clean by telling us what the government of Canada is authorizing, whether it is authorizing activities which violate the law of Canada, and stop trying to hide behind a royal commission.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is not authorizing activities which are against the law of Canada, nor is the Government of Canada attempting to hide behind the McDonald royal commission. It was as a result of repeated representations from members of the opposition that this government finally agreed to establish the McDonald royal commission.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Finally.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This was because it had been stated frequently that the subject matter which was the concern of the House of Commons was not an appropriate subject for the House of Commons and it ought to be dealt with by the McDonald royal commission. That is why we established the McDonald royal commission.
I want to repeat precisely the same position that was taken by the government on previous occasions when the credibility of witnesses was under examination by the House and when contradictory evidence was put forward before the royal commission and hon. members asked questions in the House. I believe the place to conclude all these questions is before the McDonald commission, where all the evidence will come out in context.


John Edward Broadbent: After the election.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. leader of the NDP says "After the election". That shows the suspicious mind he has.


An hon. Member:: You want to believe it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Maybe the hon. member should have had the foresight not to advocate the establishment of a royal commission if he felt its work might not coincide with his electoral objectives.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: What he wants to do, of course, is use this issue for political purposes and not to obtain the truth which we believe will be forthcoming at the McDonald royal commission, not through the politicking of members of the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN FORMER REVENUE MINISTER AND SOLICITOR GENERAL
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister should await the results of the Laycraft commission which will drop just as big a bombshell in this particular field. However, in the absence of the Minister of National Revenue from this House and the first acting minister of national revenue, I would like to turn to the quite likely second acting minister and direct my question to
-

:
May 26, 1978

the Minister of Employment and Immigration who is a former minister of national revenue. Did he write a letter to the then solicitor general expressing a view with regard to the agreement signed in 1972?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is wrong in his premise. I am not the second acting minister of national revenue.


An hon. Member:: Answer the question, anyway.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will he indicate to the House who is the second acting minister of national revenue; or is this part of the shell game that is going on?


An hon. Member:: The Gazette says Francis Fox.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: No, it is Iona.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take the representations of the hon. member, as second acting minister of this group. I would just like to make sure the hon. member knows that Miss Begin is prepared to appear and make any representations that are necessary with respect to this matter.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the hon. lady, since she represents the Minister of National Revenue in this House. Is she able to reconcile the opinion he gave this House late last year on a number of occasions in reply to questions by myself and the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot, to the effect that all that was done by the Department of National Revenue in connection with this particular agreement of 1972 was legal and that the agreement itself was legal?


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare will be pleased to take the hon. member's question when she returns to the House.


John Edward Broadbent: I have a question for the expert on parliamentary government in this House, the Deputy Prime Minister. Since he, of all people, knows that the central characteristic of parliamentary government is cabinet responsibility to members of this House, if he were interested in the truth, instead of obscuring it, he would realize that the government's central obligation, in view of this political decision reached by the cabinet, is to produce the letter that has been demanded by members on this side.
Considering it is now part of the evidence submitted to the royal commission, that the man who was superintendent of the legal branch of the RCMP, Mr. J. V. Cain, submitted to his superior a memo dated March 3 of this year and in the view of
Oral Questions
the expert in the RCMP the agreement that had been reached and authorized by the cabinet in 1972 was legal, I would like to ask if he will confirm that the cabinet authorized this agreement in 1972. Will he also inform the House whether or not there was an opinion offered by the minister of justice at that time on the legality of this agreement?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I confirm that the agreement was entered into in 1972. My recollection is, subject to checking, that it was a matter approved by the cabinet and there is absolutely no suggestion or evidence that the agreement was in any way illegal.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, if it is the minister's view that it was not illegal-and he has at least offered his opinion on this matter that is before the McDonald inquiry-will he not reconsider the position he took just a minute ago and provide for all the members of this House and the people of Canada, well in advance of the final report of the royal commission, the letter in question so that we will have an opportunity to judge the opinion that was offered allegedly by one minister of the Crown on this important matter.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the hon. member, who is normally fair-minded, would understand how dangerous it would be to produce one single element of the total evidence that will be brought before the royal commission. What happened yesterday was that reference was made by commission counsel to a letter upon which he placed a particular construction. I am not commenting one way or the other on the validity of that construction; but surely, if the letter is relevant, it ought to be considered in the over-all context of all the evidence. If a minister of the Crown is involved in the writing of the letter, then he ought to be heard before the commission and his evidence sought, so that the commission and those who are following the commission can reach a proper conclusion.
It seems to me that it would be a very wrong practice to feed into the House of Commons, in response to newspaper accounts, bits and pieces of evidence and expect that the matter would be dealt with other than in a highly partisan and highly political way.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, if there is one institution in Canada in which politics should be thoroughly discussed, surely it is the House of Commons. Considering that this matter, the decision that was made in 1972 and the subsequent testimony before the royal commission pertaining to the decision, is the first clear indication that the government abused its legal authority in condoning illegal activity, and since those allegations are clearly out now, does the Deputy Prime Minister not agree that the cabinet has a primary political responsibility in this case not to wait for the findings of the royal commission, but to help clear the air now, well in advance of the next election, so the people of Canada can judge in a fair-minded way whether the cabinet has performed legally or illegally?

May 26, 1978
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as I have stated already, the ministers have already indicated their intention to appear before the royal commission. They can be summoned at any moment the commission so decides and this particular aspect can be dealt with thoroughly and expeditiously long before the election which the hon. member fears so much.
The hon. member says the House of Commons is the place for politics. I agree with him. If we are to take the views of the opposition seriously, however, it is not the place to deal with the activities of the RCM Police in order to determine what illegalities may have occurred-


An hon. Member:: It is the cabinet we are talking about.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and to determine what the long-run practice of the force ought to be. My hon. friend again forgets that it was at the request of members of the opposition that we put this whole problem before the McDonald royal commission. Now, when there is a snippet of information that may have dribbled out of the commission, the opposition wants to bring it before the House of Commons for political purposes.


LEGALITY OF GOVERNMENT'S INSTRUCTIONS
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think the first thing we should do is get back to the original question asked by the Leader of the Opposition, which is simply this: Was there such a letter in which the Government of Canada was found guilty in advance of doing what was wrong and illegal? Is there such a letter?
I have followed the hon. gentleman's circumlocution with interest and with admiration for his political adroitness, but we come back to the question: Did the Government of Canada know that what was being done was illegal, unlawful and unjustifiable according to the opinion of the Department of Justice? That is all. If so, where is the letter? The fact that the minister has evaded the whole problem so well and so cleverly could lead even the least suspicious to conclude that the reason he is doing it is to hide the facts. They do not want to be found guilty of wrongdoing as was the opinion of a lawyer in the Department of Justice.
This is a very serious matter and not one for a royal commission; it is for parliament to determine. Will the minister produce the document? If there is nothing in it, there will be nothing to worry about; but if there is, he knows there will be a problem for the government.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, that is a whole series of questions.


Walter David Baker: Just produce the letter.


Mr. Hees:: Will you produce the letter; that is all?


An hon. Member:: Is there a letter?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there is a whole series of questions there. I could answer "No" and "Yes" to the whole series of questions. The right hon. gentleman is asking whether the government will produce the letter.


Walter David Baker: That's it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am saying that the government is not prepared to produce this particular letter because it has been referred to as part of the proceedings of the royal commission.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is incredible.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is before the royal commission.


An hon. Member:: It is not.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The letter obviously is in the possession of the commission. That is the place where it ought to be dealt with, not the House of Commons. If we do it, obviously we are transferring the whole job of the commission to the House of Commons.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is nonsense.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I just do not think the House of Commons is equipped to do the job that is required.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman does not think the House of Commons is equipped with the necessary knowledge and appreciation of the issue at stake to be able to look into this matter while a royal commission sits. I ask him once more, why cover up unless there is something to cover up?


Walter David Baker: No answer.


AIRPORTS
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Transport arises from a series of advertisements appearing in newspapers across the country promoting Mirabel airport. Since this lovable white elephant which now symbolizes Mirabel is said to be seriously deficient from a safety point of view, according to the International Federation of Airline Pilots Associations, and since Transport Canada has had to resort to a rather laughable ad campaign to attract business for the airport, may I ask the minister whether he approved of the advertisement? Could he also assure the House that before the travelling public is lured into this love-in, its safety rating will be improved to meet international standards?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the pilots' allocation of stars to airports is on the basis of their view of a departure from an absolutely ideal system. There are, of course, significant airports in the United
May 26, 1978

States with stars of deeper colours than the orange star allocated to Mirabel. In fact, the reason for the star concerns the ambulance response time, but in fact Mirabel is one of the few airports with standby ambulance service available on a 24-hour basis. So there is an argument about the one element they feel is deficient.
I think there is reason to applaud the initiative of the committee and group promoting Mirabel and its usefulness for passengers and cargo as a developmental place. I am rather happy that they decided to use the white elephant symbol. I know they will have a great deal of help from the opposition in drawing attention to the symbol over a period of time and that will, no doubt, reinforce their campaign.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the minister approves of the ad. While some people may applaud the ad and the operation of the airport, I can assure him and you, sir, that the taxpayers of Canada are not applauding the airport nor the ad.
I ask the minister if he is disregarding the comments of the international association of pilots. Does he not think the orange star, which in their view rates it as a deficient airport in terms of safety, should be taken into consideration, or does he not agree with their assessment? If he does not agree, is he going to take immediate steps to make sure that assessment is clarified? It seems to me the pilots are the logical people to assess the safety or otherwise of an airport.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had put the matter into perspective for the hon. member by indicating the ambulance response time. It is true that the location of Mirabel means it takes longer for ambulances to arrive than it does from the downtown centres of some of the smaller towns and cities nearby. There is a longer time-span for a large number of ambulances to arrive at Mirabel. On the other hand, Mirabel, unlike most airports, has a 24-hour ambulance service available, which has been used.
I think there is room for disagreement about the type of service that should be provided. I simply point out that I do not in any way diminish the view of the pilots about how they would like all conditions to be ideal, in an ideal world. This is a very small element compared to some of the elements they have noted at other airports with which red and black stars have been associated. Yet aircraft fly into those airports in great numbers. It is a relative matter that we have to weigh against all the other expenditures we could make in terms of air safety. I come back again to the over-all situation, which is that in allocating funds for air safety in Canada we have managed to produce about the safest civil aviation system in the world.
Oral Questions TRANSPORT


STEPS TO REDUCE DANGER AT RAILWAY CROSSINGS
Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that some railway crossings in Canada are proven death traps, including the one at Derry Road, Milton, in my riding of Halton, would the minister consider setting up a new, improved system to expedite requests for improvements to make these dangerous crossings secure through the use of crossbars and other safety devices?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, after the hon. member for Halton first drew to my attention the long delay with regard to some crossings, I initiated an investigation into the question. We will be looking at this matter very seriously to see what we can do to expedite approvals so that safety can be provided as quickly as possible.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture relating to the meeting of the Standing Committee on Agriculture last Tuesday, at which the minister made an announcement to the effect that there would be no pay-out for the fed cattle stabilization program for the first quarter of 1977-well over a year ago. The actual market price level for the first quarter of 1977 was some $2 lower than the last quarter of 1976, when there was a pay-out; and the costs of production for this period in 1977 were higher than in 1976.
[DOT] (U42)
Would the minister explain his rationale for arriving at the decision that there would be no pay-out for this period, other than the fact there will be no immediate election?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the Agricultural Stabilization Act as it stands allows no payout for 1977.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I have a very important question for the President of the Treasury Board which will further illustrate there is a mess in personnel administration regarding classification. However, as he is not here-he seems to be evading me-I will wait until Monday.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the serious situation facing western grain producers, can the minis-

May 26, 1978
Oral Questions
ter advise the House whether he has met with representatives of the railways to determine what steps can be taken to solve the current problems? Specifically, can he advise whether the railways have given him any undertaking that they are working on a crash program to repair boxcars for the movement of grain? It has been rumoured that if the railways find that the cost of repair is more than $500 per car, they push the boxcar into a siding.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the main work with the railways on the question of grain movement is done by the Canadian Wheat Board and the transportation committee. They do a very good job of working with the railways. When the Wheat Board feels that my intervention would be helpful, they let me know. I have, accordingly, been in touch with the railways from time to time.
The question of car repair was dealt with in the House yesterday and the day before. Essentially, I believe the situation is that most of the cars being repaired are not involved in the movement of grain. A significant number of cars would be suitable for the movement of grain but they require a large expenditure in being rebuilt for that purpose; perhaps a few thousand dollars.


AGRICULTURE
Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, in view of the serious situation facing western grain producers, can the Minister of Agriculture advise whether he has met with the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board to determine what use may be made of Canadian government inland terminals? In particular, has he discussed with the minister in charge of the Wheat Board their use for cleaning grain to export standards and the use of solid or unit trains to speed up the turnabout time so far as grain deliveries to the coast are concerned?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, there is an ongoing discussion about how we can improve the handling of grain. I am sure the hon. member is aware that we did use unit trains to transport grain to the coast. Every means available is being used to expedite the shipment of grain. There are some reservations on the part of some people in the trade about using government elevators, etc. Some people are suggesting that we should turn them over to the private sector, let the private sector operate them, and that that sector may be able to do it in a more efficient manner. When we do suggest turning them over to the private sector, they do not want us to turn them over at a reasonable cost; they want us to give them away. In most instances I object to this because taxpayers' money is involved in these grain elevators. The elevators should be used to their fullest extent by someone, but not given to the private sector.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister: it follows from questions put by the right hon. member for Prince Albert and the Leader of the Opposition.
In light of the Deputy Prime Minister's concern and the concern of all members of parliament about the integrity of parliament and the decline in the trust of the public of Canada concerning the responsibilities and integrity of parliament, why is it that after an allegation has been made on the basis of alleged evidence that the cabinet may have been breaking the law, the government will not respond to that concern today to be certain that this cloud over the cabinet of Canada and the parliament of Canada is removed immediately?
Whether the matter should have been raised at the royal commission is irrelevant. It is now on the public record that there is an allegation that the cabinet of Canada was acting illegally, and knew it. How can the government let that stand for another day before the people of Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I can clear up that point immediately. There has been no allegation that the cabinet of Canada has authorized illegalities. If that allegation has been made, then I deny its validity immediately.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. It seems to me that this is not an issue about which to split hairs. There is no question that someone has said there has been a letter. Certainly, it has been alleged there is a letter which suggested that the cabinet was informed they might be breaking the law. This was two years ago. That is in the public record. It will be in all the newspapers of Canada, it will be on television, and it is there. It is a matter of no consequence whatsoever whether the Deputy Prime Minister thinks that the cabinet did not break the law: it is there.
Until to the contrary evidence is put down in this parliament, that is what the people of Canada will believe, or at least will be suspicious of. Surely, in the interests of parliamentary democracy and the people of Canada, the Deputy Prime Minister will clear up this matter by tabling the letter so that this cloud will no longer hang over this institution.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the key words used by the hon. gentleman were "until the evidence is put down".


Charles Joseph Clark: Here in this House, to which you are responsible.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That has been my point. In the course of all the questioning there has been no suggestion of hiding anything; not at all.


Charles Joseph Clark: Produce it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The letter is in the possession of the royal commission. All the evidence can be put down before the royal commission, and that is the appropriate place for it.


An hon. Member:: Like a criminal.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If the government is at fault, and if the evidence proves that, of course it will be known and parliament can take whatever action it wishes.


An hon. Member:: It will be too late.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think there is a difference of opinion between the hon. member and myself as to the proper course to follow.


George Harris Hees: He wants to open it up, and you want to hide it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As I have already said, the place to hear the evidence, to get all the documents and to get the evidence of the ministers, is the royal commission; and it will come out. At that time conclusions will be drawn. In my view, it is certainly not appropriate to dribble out bits and pieces of the evidence in the House of Commons, in response to newspaper reports, and expect to get any judicial conclusion. I thought we set up the royal commission because we wanted a judicial process and not a political process. That is the difference of opinion between us.


FISHERIES
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries. Last Friday the minister indicated that he had set the deadline of May 26, which is today, to receive an answer from the United States in terms of responding to his decision to take Canadian fishermen off the Swiftsure Bank.
Can the minister now advise the House whether he has received a response with regard to the Canadian action in removing pressure from the Swiftsure Bank? If he has not received a response, can the minister now advise us when he will set some kind of deadline, so that we have something firm about these negotiations?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I would have to check Hansard to see exactly what words I used. Regarding the idea of a deadline, my impression was that the two sides had agreed to meet today, May 26. We expect the American answer to be known later today, or possibly tomorrow if the talks continue. I will await the report of the special negotiators indicating the answer of the United States. Maybe the word "deadline" was taken from what I said, that we would not wait until the fishing season was over, because at that point our fishermen would have made a sacrifice which would be unacceptable to us.
Oral Questions


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: As the minister knows, our fishermen have already made a sacrifice of one month with regard to fishing off the Swiftsure Bank. I should now like to direct the minister's attention to the east coast and the scallop fishery. The information I have is that the United States has doubled its fishing pressure on the scallop fishery, contrary to the interim agreement under which both sides had undertaken to maintain a consistent level of conservation. What steps does the minister propose to take, in response to U.S. pressure on the scallop fishery, to get them to comply with the interim agreement?


Roméo LeBlanc: I agree that Canadian fishermen have sustained a loss in the Swiftsure closure. I should like to remind the hon. member, however, that the possibility of closing the Swiftsure Bank was very much part of the agreement. We did not agree on the conservation reasons put forward, but the fact remains it was within the terms of the agreement that the Bank could be closed and we did not want to leave an excuse for failure by the U.S. to live up to the rest of the agreement. We have lived up to our side of it, and we expect the United States to live up to its side.
As to the east coast, again the hon. member seems to indicate that Georges Bank is completely within the Canadian eventual zone. The fact is that part of Georges Bank will be within the eventual Canadian zone and part within the American. This is a disputed area. We think the United States' conservation performance in the scallop fishery in its part of the zone, or eventual zone, has not been wise. We feel the same way about the haddock fishery. That is what the discussions which took place yesterday in Halifax were about.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture: it has to do with canned whole tomatoes. I have raised this subject on more than one occasion with the minister and with the Minister of Finance. I want to quote one sentence only from the anti-dumping tribunal on canned whole tomatoes:
The tribunal concludes ... that a dumping of whole tomatoes from Taiwan has caused, is causing, and is likely to cause material injury to the production in Canada of like goods.
Will the minister assure the House and the processors that the tariff will be continued beyond early summer this year and that serious consideration will be given to the extension and increase of the tariff?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the Tariff Board has just handed down a decision and I have not had time to review it with my colleagues. As soon as I do, we will make a statement.

May 26, 1978
Oral Questions TRADE


CANADIAN REPRESENTATION AT GATT NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has agreed to send six Canadian labour leaders to Geneva to participate formally in the GATT negotiations which are going on in that city. Has thought been given to sending a similar contingent of Canadian agricultural leaders to put forward the views of Canadian agriculture at first hand?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member used the expression "formally participate". I would describe the process somewhat differently. We have made it possible for a group of labour leaders to meet with our delegation at Geneva to discuss the ongoing multilateral trade negotiations. We thought that was a useful thing to do. We have already arranged for provincial delegations to have a similar experience. Parallel arrangements have been made for business, and I am sure we could do the same for the agricultural community if a number of leaders wish to go to Geneva to discuss matters with our delegation.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: 
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister a question with reference to the agreement we have been discussing today. I listened carefully to the answers given to the right hon. member for Prince Albert and to the Leader of the New Democratic Party, and I gather from one of the answers given that this agreement is legal. Is that the personal, flimsy and elusive opinion of the Deputy Prime Minister, or is it an opinion he got from the Department of Justice?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have not today, nor did I yesterday, asked that question of the officers of the Department of Justice. What the Leader of the New Democratic Party asked me was whether this agreement had been approved by the government and whether I thought it was legal or illegal. I answered that it had been approved by the government and that in my opinion it is certainly a legal document. It is a legal execution. If the hon. member wants me to confirm my opinion with the Department of Justice, I will be happy to do so.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am not asking whether the signatures were legal; I am asking about the meat, the content of the agreement. Did the cabinet, at that time in 1972, get an opinion from the Department of Justice to determine whether this agreement was, in substance, legal or illegal? The Deputy Prime Minister knows what I am talking about.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member asks me whether in 1972 a legal opinion was sought from the Department of Justice. That is not information which I have in my head. I will find out and tell the hon. member on Monday.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs, or Deputy Prime Minister in his capacity as leader of the House. Last night I asked when the bill on veterans affairs would be introduced. Later that evening the Minister of Veterans Affairs indicated that the first reading stage would proceed today. Has he cleared with the government House leader whether or not arrangements will be made for the bill to receive second reading and early passage next week?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No decision has been taken as to when the bill will be brought forward. It will be brought forward, but I want to keep second reading of the tax bill
May 26, 1978

under consideration by the House until it is passed, before we proceed with any other legislation.


An hon. Member:: Lots of luck.


William David Knowles: Would it make any difference to the hon. gentleman's decision if we gave an assurance that it would receive speedy passage in one afternoon, possibly Tuesday of next week?


SHIPPING
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Early this week he tabled the findings of the judicial inquiry into the sinking of the CN ferry William Carson. The principal recommendation of Mr. Justice Noel was that regulations be put in place regarding the type and conduct of ships navigating off the coast of Labrador where they encounter Arctic ice.
My question is of some urgency because the service to Labrador from the island part of Newfoundland will commence again within a very short time and the replacement vessel is undergoing a refit. Will regulations be put into effect before the service is resumed, and will those regulations reflect the recommendations of Mr. Justice Noel?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be more accurate to say the commission recommended that the minister undertake an inquiry into whether changes in the regulations should be made to provide additional levels of safety. We are undertaking that inquiry. It would obviously be ideal to have that in place before the summer movement of the new vessel into service, and we will be bearing that very much in mind as an objective.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, has the minister sought the advice of the law officers of the Crown with respect to his responsibility vis-a-vis the liability of CN to compensate those who lost goods, automobiles and belongings on the William Carson, in light of the findings of Mr. Justice Noel which placed a great deal of the blame-in fact, the majority of the blame-on CN?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have sought that advice.


POINTS OF ORDER
William David Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I asked the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) and the Deputy Prime Minister
Point of Order-Mr. MacEachen
(Mr. MacEachen) about Tuesday as a possible day for introducing the veterans bill at second reading. The minister was about to answer. I wonder if he can tell me now whether it could be brought in on Tuesday for speedy passage.


Mr. Speaker:: Order! I understood the minister to take into account the hon. member's offer of speedy passage of the bill, but he did not make an answer during the question period. Without the leave of the House I do not think I can permit him to answer now.
MR. MacEACHEN-CONFIRMATION OF LEGAL OPINION


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a separate point of order on a matter which is of interest to the justice critic of the Conservative party. He asked me whether a legal opinion had been received by the government with respect to an agreement. A legal opinion was received from the Department of Justice, and the law officers of the Crown advised that the agreement was legal and valid in all respects.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: What was the date of it?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we now have had reference made by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) to one of the documents that is referred to in relation to the agreement between the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Department of National Revenue to violate the confidentiality of tax files. In order that we might not deal with this in a fragmentary way but might have an opportunity to see the whole picture and all of the matters which are involved here, I wonder if the Deputy Prime Minister would make available to this House that legal opinion to which he has referred and the letter of the then minister of national revenue of some two years ago, which we understand raised very serious questions as to the legality of the action in which the Government of Canada was involved and to which, we presume, the legal opinion of the Department of Justice is a response.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will raise the matter of the legal opinion with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford). With respect to the other question, it was dealt with, I thought, fully and effectively in the question period.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) has now informed the House that a legal opinion on the 1972 agreement was provided by the Department of Justice. My point of order pertains to two aspects of that assertion by him. First, would he give us the date of that judgment? Was it made in 1972, or was it made subsequent to that time? Related to that, if the minister has now decided that it is appropriate to provide the House with that kind of information concerning a document which has come before the McDonald inquiry, why, logically, will he not go the appropriate step further and actually provide us with the letter which

May 26, 1978
Point of Order-Mr. MacEachen
was alleged to have been written by a minister of the Crown in 1976 on the same subject matter?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the agreement between the then solicitor general or the RCMP and the Department of National Revenue, which had as its purpose to accelerate the fight against organized crime, was made public months ago. It has been in the public domain, and it is in quite a different category from the matter which was the subject of the question period.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order arising out of the questions today. I appreciate that I did not get Your Honour's eye today, but on the statement the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) has made here today about a legal opinion, and a letter somewhat subsequent, is the Deputy Prime Minister, as a point of order, trying to suggest that there is no difference between evidence before a commission, whose terms of reference are the investigation of the RCMP, and an incident which arose in that investigation and examination suggesting illegal conduct of the cabinet to which the terms of reference of the royal commission do not extend? In that event would the Deputy Prime Minister not think that to clarify this matter, regardless of the evidence before the royal commission as to RCMP conduct, illegal or legal, there is some onus on the Deputy Prime Minister because of the allegation of illegality or an illegal agreement? Regardless of an opinion of law officers of the Crown in 1972, should the minister not clarify that now, since it has arisen now?
Does the Deputy Prime Minister put the McDonald royal commission investigating the RCMP and evidence before that commission-which properly, I agree, should be determined by that commission-together with the incident which was the subject matter of questions here by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and everybody else, regarding an allegation by a minister suggesting the cabinet has been acting illegally? That is directly outside the terms of reference of the McDonald commission. It does not involve the RCMP. It is an allegation directed against the cabinet. Is the Deputy Prime Minister today trying to say that the two situations are the same? If they are not, surely he can clarify the matter by having the letter come before the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have allowed this dialogue to go on a bit because it followed a point of order raised by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) himself, who indicated that because he had made a certain answer during the question period and undertaken to inform the House about an opinion, and since he had it now, he was doing it now. However, I will certainly permit a response to the point just raised by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan), but I do not think we can permit it to go, procedurally, any further. The Deputy Prime Minister.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I indicated I would permit a response to the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan), but this point ought not to go any further.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the question asked by the hon. member is a further illustration of how a matter can be escalated. There has been no allegation before the McDonald royal commission that the cabinet authorized illegal acts. That is the first point to be clarified. The proceeding before the McDonald royal commission was of an entirely different character. In any event, both issues can be dealt with by the McDonald royal commission. The investigation of the RCMP, the conduct of ministers and how they behave-all of that is within the purview of the McDonald royal commission, and there is no obstacle before the commission in dealing with the total situation, including the interface of ministers with the department and law officers or the RCMP. There is no limit at all.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a brief point of order. I may have missed it, but I am almost sure the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) did not indicate the date of that legal opinion of the law officers of the Crown, and I wonder if he will give us that date. If he does not have it at this particular moment, would he assure the House that he will let us know on Monday?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will do that.


Mr. Speaker:: Statements on motions.


MR. CLARK-NEUTRON BOMB POLICY
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Yesterday in response to questions from this side of the House concerning the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) at the United Nations this afternoon, which will deal with the neutron bomb and Canada's policy in that regard, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) said he saw no reason why there should not be a statement on motions expressing to the House of Commons the policy of the Government of Canada, rather than bypassing this House to express that policy in some other forum. I understood that he was going to enter into consultations with the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen), and I presumed that had in view the end of ensuring that the House of Commons would know what the policy of the Government of Canada is before that policy is expressed elsewhere.
I am rather surprised-and that is why I rise at this time- that the Deputy Prime Minister, who is also the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs, did not rise to tell the House of Commons the policy of the Government of Canada in relation to this matter, which was referred to by the minister as quite an important subject. I wonder if that was perhaps just another oversight on the part of the Deputy Prime Minister and if, in fact, he intends now to take advantage of the opportunity to rise and to tell parliament what is the policy of

May 26, 1978

the government in this matter, rather than bypass parliament for another forum.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it is not an oversight. I had absolutely no intention of making a statement on motions with respect to the disarmament policy, and I do not accept for a moment that parliament is being bypassed when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is making a statement before the United Nations on the question of disarmament. To suggest that parliament is being bypassed, I think, is an untenable position to take.


Charles Joseph Clark: I wonder if I might-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) has been recognized on a point of order about statements by ministers. I do not think any of our procedures would permit this to become an argument.


MR. CLARK-ALLEGATION GOVERNMENT IGNORING HOUSE OF COMMONS
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a separate point of order. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) today has indicated that we cannot ask questions and that he will not answer questions about matters that are before the McDonald royal commission. He has said that we will not hear statements about matters of policy which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) would prefer to express before the United Nations. So that the House of Commons might know exactly about our diminished state, I wonder if the Acting Prime Minister might provide a list of those other forums at which government policy will be stated and government information made known, as the government carries on its consistent practice of ignoring the House of Commons, ignoring its responsibility to make statements of policy here, and consistently seeking forums other than the forum to which it is responsible to make its statements of policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The statement of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) is filled with distortions and inaccuracies. He said I had refused to answer questions on this subject. I spent about 40 minutes answering questions from himself-


An hon. Member:: You said nothing.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -from the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), from the justice critic of the Conservative party, and from the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). And the Leader of the Opposition has the gall to say I refused to answer questions! The country can see on television how foolish is the statement of the Leader of the Opposition.
Order Paper Questions
To suggest that when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) makes a statement at the UN on disarmament he is bypassing parliament is a ridiculous assertion. The President of France, the Vice-President of the United States and, I understand, the Premier of Germany, are all making statements, and I hope there is no leader of the opposition in any of those countries so absurd as to suggest that they are casting a reflection on the elected representatives of the people when they are doing that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Those are republics, not parliamentary systems.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-58, to amend the Pension Act and the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, a total of 114 questions will be answered today, more specifically questions Nos. 560 to 673 inclusive, and question No. 1,424.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


[Stage Direction]
Questions Nos. 560-673-Mr. McKinley:
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Aaron Building, 1712 Carling Ave., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
[Stage Direction]
May 26, 1978
Order Paper Questions
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Abrams Building, 2620 Sheffield Road, Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Alakantti-Liff Building, 222 Somerset St. W., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Allstate Building, 875 Carling Ave., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the American Can Company, 145 Spruce St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Aselford-Martin Building, 1725 Woodward Dr., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Bank Building, 491 Bank St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?

3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Bank of Nova Scotia Building, 427 Preston St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the 80 Bayview Rd. Building, Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Beamish Building, 1501 Carling Ave., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the 717 Belfast Road Building, Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Berger Building, 100 Metcalfe St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
May 26, 1978
[Stage Direction]
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Betcherman Building, 10 Beech wood Ave., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Billings Bridge Plaza, Riverside Dr., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Bonaventure Building, 301 Elgin St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Bourque Memorial Building, 305 Rideau St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Brock Building, 2780 Sheffield Road, Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Brunswick Building, Bank at Lisgar St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
Order Paper Questions
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Burnside Building, 151 Slater St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Canada Permanent Trust Bldg., 42-48 Sparks St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Canadian Building, 219 Laurier Ave. W., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Canadian Labour Congress Bldg., 2841 Riverside Dr., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Canadian Legion Building, 359 Kent St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
[Stage Direction]
May 26, 1978
Order Paper Questions
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Canadian Teachers Federation Building, 110 Argyle Ave., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Carlingwood Plaza Building, Carlingwood, Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Centennial Towers, 400 Laurier Ave. W., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Century Building, 360 Lisgar St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Chomley Building, 400 Cooper St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the City Centre Towers, 880 Wellington St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
[Mr. McKinley.J
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Colonel By Campus, 281 Echo Drive, Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Colonel By Towers, 969 Bronson Ave., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Commerce City Building, 1675 Russel Rd., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Commonwealth Building, 77 Metcalfe St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Concord Building, 280 Albert St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?

May 26, 1978
[Stage Direction]
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Congill Building, 275 Slater St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Connelly Building, 2487 Kaladar Ave., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Copeland Building, 294 Albert St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Corbet Building, 1339 Wellington St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Crain Building, 270 Carling Ave., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Cross Canada Flights Bldg., Hunt Club Rd., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
Order Paper Questions
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the D.M. & M. Building, 2378 Holly Lane, Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Darmont Building, 1306 Wellington St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Dibblee Building, 2721 Highway 31, Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Dustbane Building, 25 Pickering Place, Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Dustbane-Dominion Building, 250 Tremblay Rd., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
5778
[Stage Direction]
May 26, 1978
Order Paper Questions
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Elgar Building, 200 Elgin St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Empire Building, 124 O'Connor St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Export Development Bldg., 110 O'Connor St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Fraser Building., 130 Bentley St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the French Canadian Institute Bldg., 316 Dalhousie St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Fuller Building, 75 Albert St., Ottawa?

2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the G.M.A.C. Building, 237 Argyle Ave., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the General Building, 185 Somerset St. W., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Genco Building, 1129 St. Laurent Blvd., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Gillin Building, 141 Laurier Ave. W., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Goldstein Building, 177 Nepean St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
May 26, 1978
[Stage Direction]
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Grant-Unsworth Building, 322 Catherine St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Greenberg Building, 100 Gloucester St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Halifax Building, 309 Cooper St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Halldon House, 2255 Carling Ave., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Highland Bldg., 505 St. Laurent Blvd., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Hull Building, 183 rue Principale, Hull, P.Q.?
Order Paper Questions
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the I.G.A. Building, 1650 Carling Ave., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Imperial Building, 251 Bank St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Jelnor Building, 171 Nepean St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Johannsen Building, 47-51 Young St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Journal Building No. 1, 365 Laurier Ave. W., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
[Stage Direction]
May 26, 1978
Order Paper Questions
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Journal Building No. 2, 300 Slater St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Kelly Building, 39 McArthur Rd., Vanier City, Ontario?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Kenson Building, 225 Metcalfe St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Kent-Albert Building, 150 Kent St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Kent Professional Building, 381 Kent St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Killeany Building, 460 O'Connor St., Ottawa?

2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Laurier-O'Con-nor Bldg., 251 Laurier Ave. W., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the L'Esplanade Laurier Bldg., Laurier & O'Connor Sts., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Lisgar Bldg., 116 Lisgar St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Liverpool Court, 1570 Liverpool Court, Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Lord Elgin Plaza, 66 Slater St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?

. I

May 26, 1978
[Stage Direction]
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the MacDonald Building, 123 Slater St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Majestic Building, 396 Cooper St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Maple Building, 227 Laurier Ave. W., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Martel Building, 270 Albert St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Metcalfe Building, 88 Metcalfe St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the 200A Metcalfe Building, Ottawa?
Order Paper Questions
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Metro Centre- Block C, 1030 Innes Rd., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Museum Bldg., 2379 Holly Lane, Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Narono Building, 354-366 Laurier Ave. W., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the National Capital Commission Bldg., 7 Murray St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the National Drug Bldg., 205 Catherine St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
[Stage Direction]
May 26, 1978
Order Paper Questions
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the National Museum of Science & Technology, 1867 St. Laurent Blvd., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Nicol Bldg., 331 Cooper St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the O'Connor Bldg., 190 O'Connor St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Ottawa Motor Sales Bldg., 860 Bank St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Pebb Building, 2197 Riverside Dr., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Place Bell Canada Bldg., 160 Elgin St., Ottawa?

2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Place de Ville, Tower "A", 320 Queen St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Place de Ville, Tower "B", 112 Kent St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Place de Ville, Tower "C", 330 Sparks St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Place de Ville, Podium, 300 Sparks St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Place Vanier, Tower "A", 333 River Rd., Vanier City, Ontario?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
May 26, 1978
[Stage Direction]
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Place Vanier, Tower "B", 355 River Rd., Vanier City, Ontario?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Place Vanier, Tower "C", 25 McArthur Rd., Vanier City, Ontario?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the 60 Queen St. Building, Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the 66 Queen St. Building, Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Queensway Towers, 200 Isabella St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Queenswest Block, 1600 Liverpool Court, Ottawa?
Order Paper Questions
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Rankin's Hardware Bldg., 20 James St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the R.C.A. Victor Bldg., 1517 Laperriere St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Richmond Road Bldg., 1305 Richmond Rd., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Royal Trust Bldg., 116 Albert St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the S.B.I. Building, Billings Bridge, Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
[Stage Direction]
May 26, 1978
Order Paper Questions
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Sanitary Laundry Building, 255 Argyle Ave., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Shirden Building, 308 Rideau St., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
[Stage Direction]
1.	How many square feet are leased by the government in the Sir Guy Carleton Bldg., 161 Laurier Ave. W., Ottawa?
2.	What is the cost per square foot?
3.	Which departments are located there?
4.	Who is the landlord?
5.	On what date does the lease expire and will it be renewed?
6.	How many square feet are currently classified vacant?
7.	How many square feet will be vacated or refitted in the next five years because of decentralization?
Mr. Frank Maine (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Ques- tion No.	(1) Square Feet	(2) Cost per Square Feet	(3) Department	(4) Landlord	(5) Expiry Date and Renewal	(6)	(?)560	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Terminated November 30, 1976	Nil	Nil561	30,339	(3 leases) $3.32 av. No. 1 1,936 at $3.29 No. 2 26,467 at $3.29 No. 3 1,936 at $3.75	Indian and Northern Affairs	Leo P. Abrams (Carleton) Ltd.	November 30, 1980 Final disposition not yet determined	Nil	Nil562	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Terminated November 30, 1976	Nil	Nil563	3,976	$4.40	Department of Public Works	Lieff Holdings Limited	April 30, 1980 Final disposition Not yet determined	Nil	Nil564	45,838	$1.81	Indian and Northern Affairs (Indian Arts and Craft Centre)	Domanial Holding Co. Ltd.	April 30, 1978 Yes	Nil	Nil565	66,912 off. 138 storage plus 89 parking spaces	[DOT]See below $6.75 off. $2.50 storage [DOT]No. 1 67,050 at $6.74 expires June 30, 1985 No. 2 89 parking stalls at $ 144.00 ea. expires June 30, 1980	Public Service Commission.	Garth Aselford Ltd. and J. Walton Martin Ltd.	June 30, 1985 Office and Storage June 30, 1980 Parking Final disposition not yet determined	Nil	Nil566	7,044	$4.00	National Museums of Canada	Shenkman Corp. Ltd.	January 31,1979 Final disposition not yet determined	Nil	Nil567	3,265 (3,178 office) ( 87 storage)	$5.20	Agriculture	Prescott Realties Ltd.	June 30, 1978. Final disposition not yet determined	Nil	Nil568	640	$3.75	National Museum ofCanada	National Capital Commission	Monthly Final disposition not yet determined	Nil	Nil569	22,558	$3.90	National Museum of Canada	R.A. Beamish Stores Co. Ltd.	August 31, 1979 Final disposition not yet determined	Nil	Nil570	12,369	$5.50	Energy, Mines and Resources	Sheffield Industrial Park Ltd.	March 31, 1979 Final disposition not yet determined	Nil	Nil571	186,264	(5 leases) No. 1 96,174 at $4.49 No. 2 3,700 at $2.00 No. 3 83,852 at $4.82 No. 4 218 at $2.00 No. 5 2,320 at $2.00	Canadian Radio and Television Commission, Department of Finance, Supply and Services Canada, Energy Mines and Resources, Public Service Commission.	Ottawa Commercial Realties Ltd.	No. 1 June 30, 1979 No. 2 June 30, 1979 No. 3 March 31, 1979 No. 4 December 31, 1977 No. 5 September 30, 1978 Final disposition not yet determined	4 parking spaces	Nil572	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Terminated June 30, 1975	Nil	Nil573	24,000	$6.25	Veterans Affairs	S.B.L Management Ltd.	April 30, 1978	Nil	Nil
No
[Mr. McKinley.)
May 26, 1978			COMMONS DEBATES				5785
				Order Paper Questions			
Ques- tion No.	(1) Square Feet	(2) Cost per Square Feet	(3) Department	(4) Landlord	(5) Expiry Date and Renewal	(6)	(7)574	60,000	$5.98	National Health and Welfare, Public Works and Industry, Trade and Commerce	Sardina Investments Ltd. c/o E.D. Berry in Trust	April 30, 1980 Final disposition not yet determined	Nil	Nil575	227,149	$6.06	Manpower and Immigration, Supply and Services Canada, National Health and Welfare	Immeubles Laurentian Realties Ltd.	September 30, 1986 Final disposition not yet determined	Nil	Nil576	22,000	$2.95	Transport Canada	Sheffield Industrial Park	January 31,1986 Final disposition not yet determined	Nil	Nil577	37,650 (office) 5,980 (storage)	$3.47 (office) $2.50 (storage)	Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Environment, National Museums of Canada	Levine Realty Co. Ltd.	February 28, 1981 Final disposition not yet determined	5,000 in basement	Nil578	16,541	(3 leases) 6.29 av. No. 1 10,557 at $7.00 No. 2 2,235 at $4.79 No. 3 3,749 at $5.20	International Joint Commission, Indian and Northern Affairs, Manpower and Immigration	Metcalfe Realty Co.	No. I November 30/77 extended to February 28/78 No. 2 January 31 /78 No. 3 January 31/78 extended to March 31/78 No. 1 and 3 final disposition not yet determined No. 2 terminating January 31/78	1,546	Nil579	12,000	$4.10	Privy Council Office	National Capital Commission	April 30, 1978 Final disposition not yet determined	Nil	Nil580	198,675	(2 leases) No. 1 1,718 at $3.70 No. 2 196,957 at $3.09	Anti-Inflation Review Board, Supply and Services, Secretary of State, Regional Economic Expansion	Ottawa Commercial Realties	June 30, 1978 Final disposition not yet determined	7,217 (basement) 6,828 (6th floor)	Nil581	5,429	(2 leases) No. 1 1,396 at $5.57 No. 2 4,033 at $5.42	Agriculture, Supply and Services Canada	Canadian Labour Congress	No. 1 October 31, 1978 No. 2 January 31, 1979 Final disposition not yet determined	Nil	Nil582	19,206	$7.00	Supply and Services Canada, Public Works Canada, Consumer and Corporate Affairs	Royal Canadian Legion	April 30, 1980 Final disposition not yet determined	Nil	Nil583	5,684	$5.91	National Museum of Canada	Canadian Teacher's Federation	June 30, 1986 Final disposition not yet determined	Nil	Nil584	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Terminated August 31, 1977	Nil	Nil585	372,849 (257 parking spaces)	(5 leases) No. 1 190,280 at $3.75 p.s.f. 6,428 at $2.00 p.s.f. 24,650 at $0.50 p.s.f. 221,358 sq.ft. No. 2 71,571 at $5.75 p.s.f. 1,000 at $2.00 p.s.f. 72,571 sq. ft. No. 3 21,080 at $5.45 p.s.f. No. 4 13,684 at $5.38 No. 5 37,582 at $3.75 p.s.f. 4,374 at $5.00 p.s.f. 2,200 at $0.50 p.s.f. 44,156 sq. ft.	Indian and Northern Affairs (Administration Program), Canadian Transport Commission, National Health and Welfare, Supply and Services Canada	Campeau Corporation Co. Ltd.	No. 1 July 31, 1980 No. 2 July 31, 1979 No. 3 July 31, 1978 No. 4 July 31, 1980 No. 5 September 30, 1980 Final disposition not yet determined	Nil	Nil586	125,325	(2 leases) No. 1 114,000 at $4.80 No. 2 11,325 at $2.00	Revenue Canada (Taxation), Public Works Canada, Energy, Mines and Resources, Industry, Trade and Commerce and Secretary of State	Cyrand Investments Ltd. and Levine Realty Co. Ltd.	May 31, 1978 No	1 parking space	Nil587	129,423	(3 leases) No. 1 12,489 at $10.00 No. 2 113,789 at $ 7.15 2,956 at $ 3.25 No. 3 189 at $4.76	Manpower and Immigration, Unemployment Insurance Commission, Public Service Commission, Royal Canadian Mounted Police	Chomley Investments	No. 1 July 31. 1981 No. 2 October 30, 1980 October 30, 1980 No. 3 October 30, 1980 Final disposition not yet determined	Nil	Nil588	57,331 and 80 parking stalls	(5 leases) No. 1 31,845 at $4.10 No. 2 9,579 at $2.13 No. 3 6,742 at $1.95 No. 4 6,169 at $1.81	Energy, Mines and Resources, House of Commons, Fisheries and the Environment	City Centre Developments Ltd.	No. 1 December 31, 1977 No. 2 September 30, 1978 No. 3 February 28, 1979 No. 4 February 28, 1979 No. 5 February 29, 1979	4,099 and 6 parking spaces	Nil5786	COMMONS DEBATES	May 26,	1978Order Paper Questions	Ques- tion No.	(1) Square Feet	(2) Cost per Square Feet	(3) Department	(4) Landlord	(5) Expiry Date and Renewal	(6)	(7)No. 5 2,996 at $1.99	Terminating 18,845 December 31, 1977 Final disposition not yet determined	589	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Terminated October 31, 1976	Nil	Nil590	20,510	$4.91	National Health and Welfare	Campeau Corporation	December 31, 1977 renegotiated to May 31/78 No	Nil	Nil591	14,812	$3.70	Environment Canada	Commerce City Investments Ltd.	August 31, 1981 Final disposition not yet determined	Nil	Nil592	5,215	(2 leases) No. 1 1,517 at $4.45 No. 2 3,698 at $3.92	Secretary of State	N.D.M. Leaseholds (Nathan David and Max Zelikovitz)	No. 1 June 30, 1978 No. 2 March 31, 1978 No.	Nil	Nil593	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Terminated October 31, 1977	Nil	Nil594	202,660	(4 leases) No. 1 1,382 at $3.00 No. 2 540 at $2.10 No. 3 198,968 at $4.78 No. 4 1,770 at $2.10	Cdn. Transport Commission, Atomic Energy of Canada, Cdn. Patents and Development, Statistics Canada, D.S.S.	Standard Life Assurance Co.	No. 1 May 31, 1978 No. 2 October 31, 1978 No. 3 October 31, 1978 No. 4 October 31, 1978 Final disposition not yet determined	2 parking spaces	Nil595	23,393	$1.51	National Museums of Canada	C.L. Connelly	October 31, 1978 Final disposition not yet determined	Nil	Nil596	55,000	$6.25	Ministry of Transport	Robert E. Simon	March 31, 1978 No	Nil	Nil597	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Terminated November 30, 1976	Nil	Nil598	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Terminated September 30, 1977	Nil	Nil599	28,346	$5.26	Energy, Mines and Resources	Cross Canada Flights Ltd.	May 31, 1978 Yes	Nil	Nil600	10,568	$4.50	National Museums of Canada	D.M. & M. Realties Ltd.	July 31, 1978 Final disposition not yet determined	Nil	Nil601	9,466	$2.91	National Museums of Canada	Darmont Holdings Ltd.	December 31, 1980 Final disposition not yet determined	Nil	Nil602	21,766	(2 leases) No. 1 19,766 square feet at $3.54 No. 2 (shed) 2,000 square feet at $0.50	Environment Canada	Dibblee Construction Ltd. and Iruck Investments Ltd.	No. 1 January 31, 1979 No. 2 November 30, 1978 Final disposition not yet determined	Nil	Nil603	14,300	$4.79	Environment Canada	Dustbane Enterprises Ltd.	October 31, 1978 No	Nil	Nil604	103,112	(5 leases) No. 1 1 1,957 at $6.05 p.s.f. No. 2 41,840 at $4.65 p.s.f. No. 3 4,500 at $4.65 p.s.f. No. 4 41,472 at $4.65 p.s.f. No. 5 3,343 at $5.80 p.s.f.	Royal Canadian Mounted Police	The Manufacturers Life Insurance Co.	No. 1 July 31, 1979 No. 2 July 31, 1978 No. 3 July 31, 1978 No. 4 October 31, 1978 No. 5 December 31, 1979 Final disposition not yet determined	Nil	Nil605	118,330	$3.39	National Defence	Bert Loeb	May 31, 1978 Yes	Nil	Nil606	2,785	$6.00	Indian and Northern Affairs	Uniprop Holdings Ltd.	June 30, 1978 No	Nil	Nil607	112,665	$5.14	Anti-Inflation Review Board, D.S.S., National Defence, Secretary of State, Statistics Canada, Canadian Penitentiary Service, Indian and Northern Affairs	Narono Holdings Ltd.	October 31, 1979 Final disposition not yet determined	413 square feet (basement)	Nil608	65,389	$2.98	Energy, Mines and Resources	Greenside Developments Ltd.	January 31,1985 Final disposition not yet determined	Nil	Vaca- ting 65,389609	5,808	$5.25	Manpower and Immigration	L'Institut Canadien Fransais d'Ottawa	September 30, 1980 Final disposition not yet determined	Nil	Nil610	50,385	(5 leases) No. 1 700 at $4.50 No. 2 33,398 at $4.50 No. 3 2,926 at $5.00 No. 4 11,687 at $3.77	National Museums of Canada Secretary of State	Metcalfe Realty Co.	No. 1 October 31, 1978 No. 2 October 31, 1978 No. 3 October 31, 1978 No. 4 December 31, 1977 No. 5 October 31, 1978	2,461 (basement)	Nil

May 26, 1978

Order Paper Questions
Ques- tion No.	(1) Square Feet	(2) Cost per Square Feet	(3) Department	(4) Landlord	(5) Expiry Date and Renewal	(6)	(7)
		No. 5 1,674 at $5.00			Terminating 14,248 December 31, 1977 Remainder, disposition not yet determined		
611	3,620	$5.95	National Museums of Canada	Retno Limited	April 30, 1980 Final disposition not yet determined	Nil	Nil612	6,176	$4.40	National Defence	Freedman Realty Co. Ltd.	September 30, 1978 Final disposition not yet determined	Nil	Nil613	1,945	$7.90	Unemployment Insurance Commission	Robert M. Gencher	April 30, 1978 Final disposition not yet determined	Nil	Nil614	78,974	(2 leases) No. 1 70,000 at $3.58 No. 2 8,974 at $5.95	National Museums of Canada C.E. and I.C.	Gillin Engineering and Construction Ltd.	February 29, 1980 Final disposition not yet determined	10,000	Nil615	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Terminated November 30, 1977	Nil	Nil616	13,804	$2.34	Energy, Mines and Resources National Museums of Canada	Hugh M. Grant Ltd.	October 31,1979 Final disposition not yet determined	Nil	Nil617	5,482	$4.75	National Defence	Kenneth Radnoff in Trust	September 30, 1981 Final disposition not yet determined	Nil	Nil618	21,555	$5.50	E.M.R.	North Cooper Limited	July 31, 1978 Final disposition not yet determined	Nil	Nil619	No record in DPW Inventory	620	75	$6.67	Royal Canadian Mounted Police-antenna	Wesman Holdings Ltd.	September 30, 1982 Final disposition not yet determined	Nil	Nil621	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Terminated September 30, 1976	Nil	Nil622	23,036	$4.00	Revenue Canada (Customs)	Northern Telecom Ltd.	March 31, 1979 Final disposition not yet determined	78 Parking spaces	Nil623	6,412	$5.40	Solicitor General	McRae Holdings Ltd.	May 31, 1979 Final disposition not yet determined	Nil	Nil624	23,130 and 2,867	$5.40 and $2.00	National Defence	Granum Ltd.	March 31, 1978 Final disposition not yet determined	2,276 (basement)	Nil625	19,580	$3.00	Transport Canada	Secemb Investments Ltd.	September 30, 1979 Final disposition not yet determined	Nil	Nil626	238,917	$6.25	Solicitor General, National Defence, Supply and Services, National Health and Welfare, Canadian Transport Commission, Indian and Northern Affairs, Tarriff Board	1)	The Journal Publishing Co. of Ottawa Ltd. 2)	Campeau Corporation	February 28,1979 Final disposition not yet determined	Nil	Nil627	286,924	(2 leases) No. 1 278,065 at $7.25 7,419 at $3.50 No. 2 1,440 at $8.75	Communications, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., Treasury Board, Labour, Solicitor General, M.O.T. Justice	Campeau Corporation	April 30, 1980 Final disposition not yet determined	39,270	54,047628	10,065 and	$4.35 and $3.25	National Museums of Canada	Jelnor Holdings Ltd.	July 31, 1980	Nil	Nil9,670	Final disposition not yet determined	629	4,931	(2 leases)	Consumer and Corporate	Riverside Terrace (Ottawa) Ltd.	July 31, 1978	Nil	Nil16,069	No. 1 4,931 at $5.50	Affairs,	Termination 6,517	No. 2 16,069 at $5.50	Supply and Services Canada,	January 31, 1978 balance.	National Defence	final disposition not yet determined	630	104,116	(8 leases)	Industry Trade and Commerce,	Dolly Holdings Ltd.,	No. 1 October 31, 1979	Nil	NilNo. 1 11,837 at $3.00	National Film Board, Privy	Willowdale, Ontario	No. 2 October 31, 1979	No. 2 10,747 at $5.50	Council, Science Council of	No. 3 January 31, 1978	No. 3 14,650 at $6.25	Canada, Solicitor General,	No. 4 October 31, 1979	No. 4 7,232 at $8.50	National Parole Board, National	No. 5 February 2, 1978	No. 5 29,300 at $6.25	Museums	No. 6 July 31, 1979	
80038-76y2

May 26, 1978
Order Paper Questions
Ques- tion No. (1) Square Feet		(2) Cost per Square Feet	(3) Department	(4) Landlord	(5) Expiry Date and Renewal	(6)	(7)
		No. 6 14,650 at $4.20 No. 7 14,650 at $4.20 No. 8 1,050 at $9.50			No. 7 July 31, 1979 No. 8 October 31, 1979 29,300 terminate February 28, 1978 balance, final disposition not yet determined		
631	13,865 and 500	$6.25 and $2.50	Tax Review Board	381 Realty Ltd.	March 31, 1979 Final disposition not yet determined	Nil	Nil632	115,829	(2 leases) $6.95 (average) No. 1 8,242 at $3.00 p.s.f. No. 2 107,587 at $7.25 p.s.f.	Public Service Commission	Kelleany Corporation Ltd.	October 31, 1985 Final disposition not yet determined	4,914 (basement)	Nil633	9,982	$4.90	Manpower and Immigration	N.D.M. Leaseholds	September 30, 1979 Final disposition not yet determined	Nil	Nil634	882,247	(4 leases) No. 1 841,567 at $ 6.95 No. 2 2,399 at $18.00 No. 3 20,300 at $ 6.75 No. 17,981 at $ 3.00 Parking 300 at $480.00 per stall per annum	Insurance, National Defence, Public Service Commission U.I.C., Manpower and Immigration, National Museums of Canada, Public Works, Public Service Staff Relations Board, D.S.S., National Health and Welfare	Olympia and York Developments Ltd.	(Lease Purchase) No. 1 June 30, 2010 No. 2 February 28, 1986 No. 3 June 30, 1986 No. 4 June 30, 1981 Parking 300 expires August 31, 1980	Nil	Nil635	26,122	(2 leases) No. 1 6,443 at $6.05 No. 2 19,679 at $5.19 (approx.)	Environment Immigration Appeal Board	Logawi Holdings Ltd.	No. 1 January 31, 1978 No. 2 March 31, 1979 Terminate 6,443 January 31, 1978 balance, final disposition not yet determined	2 parking spaces 3,982	Nil636	31,934	$3.65	Indian and Northern Affairs	Merkburn Holdings Ltd.	December 31, 1980 Final disposition not yet determined	Nil	Nil637	246,125	(6 leases) No. 1 17,790 at $6.80 No. 2 200 at $2.10 No. 3 91,356 at $5.00 No. 4 64, 587 at $5.76 No. 5 2,348 at $7.99 No. 6 69,844 at $4.91	Supply and Services Canada, National Defence, Cdn. Intergovernmental Conference, Secretary of State, Anti-Inflation Board	Ottawa Elgin Investments Ltd.	No. 1 June 30, 1982 No. 2 January 31, 1979 No. 3 March 31, 1979 No. 4 August 31, 1977 No. 5 March 31, 1979 No. 6 July 31, 1979 Final disposition to be determined	27,484	Nil638	99,070	$5.90	National Revenue (Taxation)	Metcalfe Realty Ltd.	December 31, 1979 Final disposition not yet determined	32 parking spaces	Nil639	23,025	$4.25	Environment of Canada	Shirden Investments Ltd.	August 31, 1978 Final disposition not yet determined	Nil	Nil640	16,133	$2.07	Anti-Inflation Review Board	Landis Realty Ltd.	June 30, 1978 Final disposition not yet determined	Nil	Nil641	127,909	$7.11	Ministry of Science and Technology, Supply and Services Canada, Atomic Energy Control Board, Industry, Trade and Commerce, Finance	270 Albert Realty Ltd.	August 31, 1980 Final disposition not yet determined	Nil	Nil642	105,064	(2 leases) No. 1 99,832 at $5.01 No. 2 5,232 at $5.05	National Revenue (Taxation)	Metcalfe Realty Ltd.	December 31, 1979 (2 leases) Final disposition not yet determined	Nil	Nil643	992	$4.15 Treasury Board and Finance to January 1976 Sublet to the Ottawa Rape Crises Centre in April 1976 to March 1978.	Daniel Komesh	March 31, 1978 No	Nil	Nil644	65,516	$3.02	National Museums of Canada	Admiral Leaseholds Ltd.	April 30, 1995 Final disposition to be determined	Nil	Nil645	42,000	$3.75	National Museums of Canada	D.M. & M. Realty Ltd.	June 30, 1982 Final disposition to be determined	Nil	Nil646	110,328	(3 leases) No. 1 105,418 at $4.49 No. 2 4,072 at $2.10 No. 3 838 at $9.00	National Defence, Supply and Services Canada	Narono Holdings Ltd. c/o Goldberg, Shinder, Schmelzer and Gardner	No. 1 July 31, 1984 No. 2 July 31, 1978 No. 3 July 31, 1981 Final disposition to be	Nil	Nil
determined

May 26, 1978

Order Paper Questions
Ques-							
tion					(5) Expiry Date and		
No.	(1) Square Feet	(2) Cost per Square Feet	(3) Department	(4) Landlord	Renewal	(6)	(7)647	16,454	$1.50	National Museums of Canada	National Capital Commission	Month to month to December, 1979 Final disposition to be determined	Nil	Nil648	28,300	$2.59	Statistics Canada	Bechard Investments	July 31, 1978	4,010	Nil(North Bay) Ltd.	Final disposition to be determined	storage	649	141,772	$2.82	National Museums of Canada	Gerku Investments Ltd.	March 31, 1987 Final disposition to be determined	Nil	Nil650	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Terminated November 30, 1976	Nil	Nil651	56,782	$6.08	National Defence	Sol Shabinski, David Reid,	November 30, 1977	Nil	NilHerbert Cohen, Moshe Feig, Herman Goldstein, and Sybil Green berg-Mi rsky	Yes	652	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Terminated September 30, 1976	Nil	Nil653	27,492	(2 leases) $4.78 average	Statistics Canada, Pensions	Riverside Terrace (Ottawa) Ltd.	October 31, 1979	Nil	12,187No. 1 765 at $4.00 p.s.f.	Advocats Bureau, Canadian	(both leases)	No. 2 26,727 at $4.80 p.s.f.	Dairy Commission	Final disposition to be determined	654	434,504	(2 leases)	Finance, Treasury Board,	Olympia & York Developments	November 30, 1979	Nil	NilNo. 1 433,979 at $5.86	Supply and Services Canada,	Ltd.	(both leases)	No. 2 525 at $5.50	National Health and Welfare,	Final disposition to be	Inspector General of Banks	determined	655	238,207	(12 leases) $4.83 average	National Harbours Board,	Campeau Corporation Ltd.	No. 1 March 31, 1983	Nil	NilNo. 1 1,932 at $2.00	St. Lawrence Seaway Authority,	No. 2 December 31, 1980	No. 2 6,027 at $ 6.50	Supply and Services Canada,	No. 3 June 30, 1978	No. 3 1,488 at $6.50	National Health and Welfare,	No. 4 June 30, 1981	No. 4 1,319 at $5.50	MOT.	No. 5 June 30, 1981	No. 5 1,547 at $5.50	No. 6 June 30, 1978	No. 6 1,957 at $5.77	No. 7 March 31, 1983	No. 7 215,163 at $ 4.82	No. 8 June 30, 1978	No. 8 905 at $ 5.77	No. 9 May 31, 1980	No. 9 2,463 at $ 2.00	No. 10 March 31, 1983	No. 10 2,780 at $ 2.00	No. 11 October 31, 1981	No. 11 1,803 at $5.34	No. 12 September 30, 1979	No. 12 823 at $10.00	Final disposition to be determined	656	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	September 30, 1977 Building vacated December 8, 1977 No	Nil	Nil657	541,568	(4 leases)	Transport Canada, Supply and	Campeau Corporation Ltd.	No. 1 October 31, 1981	Nil	Nil*No. 1 560,268 at $5.77	Services Canada	No. 2 October 31, 1981	No. 2 6,300 at $8.73	No. 3 October 31, 1981	No. 3 27,326 at $6.44	No. 4 April 30, 1982	No. 4 998 at $2.00	Final disposition to be	[DOT]See also question No. 658 includes 53,324 sq. ft. in Place de Ville, Podium Bldg.	determined	658	53,324	$5.77	Public Works Canada, Justice,	Campeau Corporation Ltd.	October 31, 1981	33,990	NilIncluded in Lease	National Revenue (Taxation)	Final disposition to be	No. 1 of Tower "C"	Farm Products Marketing	determined	See question No. 657	Council, MOT	659	185,726	(7 leases)	Economic Council of Canada,	Bona Bldg, and Management	No. 1 October 31, 1981	Nil	90,629No. 1 113,400 at $4.66	Canada Pension Plan, National	Ltd.	No. 2 June 30, 1978	No. 2 4,847 at $5.25	Sports and Recreational Centre,	No. 3 October 31, 1981	No. 3 15,904 at $4.75	National Health and Welfare,	No. 4 September 30, 1979	No. 4 4,731 at $4.66	Supply and Services,	No. 5 February 28, 1979	No. 5 670 at $4.66	Unemployment Insurance	No. 6 September 30, 1979	No. 6 40,500 at $4.49	Commission	No. 7 October 31, 1981	No. 7 5,674 at $2.25	Final disposition to be determined	660	218,821	(5 leases)	Unemployment Insurance	Bona Bldg, and Management	No. 1 October 31, 1981	Nil	55,089No. 1 213,720 at $4.66	Commission, National Health	Company Ltd.	No. 2 July 31, 1980	No. 2 1,200 at $3.50	and Welfare, Canada Pension	No. 3 April 30, 1979	No. 3 2,000 at $3.50	Plan, National Sports and	No. 4 August 31, 1980	No. 4 1,463 at $3.25	Recreation, Urban Affairs and	No. 5 October 31, 1981	No. 5 438 at $3.25	Housing, Royal Canadian Mint,	Final disposition to be	Government Annuities Branch, Manpower and Immigration, Public Works Canada, National Defence	determined	661	90,243	(3 leases)	Manpower and Immigration,	Bona Bldg, and Management	August 31, 1980 (3 leases)	Nil	NilNo. 1 87,048 at $ 7.20	Central Mortgage and Housing,	Company Ltd.	Final disposition to be	No. 2 2,173 at $10.00	National Sports and Recreation	determined	No. 3 1,022 at $ 3.25	Centre	
May 26, 1978
..
Order Paper Questions
Ques- tion No.	(1) Square Feet	(2) Cost per Square Feet	(3) Department	(4) Landlord	(5) Expiry Date and Renewal	(6)	(7)662	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Terminated August 6, 1976	Nil	Nil663	4,476	$6.00	Treasury Board	National Arts Centre	July 31, 1978 No	Nil	Nil664	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Terminated October 31, 1976	Nil	Nil665	31,947	$3.80	Indian and Northern Affairs	Queenswest Development	February 28,1985 Final disposal to be determined	Nil	Nil666	15,505	$4.50	Library of Parliament	Rankin's Hardware	May 31, 1981 Final disposition to be determined	Nil	Nil667	16,000	$2.35	Energy, Mines and Resources	Bill Cliff Ltd.	October 31, 1978 Final disposition to be determined	Nil	Nil668	6,907	$5.10	Statistics Canada	Ernest W. Assaly & Thomas C. Assaly	August 31, 1978 No	Nil	Nil669	3,151	$5.14	Unemployment Insurance Commission	Lander Holdings Ltd.	March 31, 1978 Final disposition to be determined	Nil	Nil670	147,708	$7.25	Post Office, Supply and Services, Agriculture, Public Works, Revenue Canada (Customs)	Rolancia S.A. Societe Anonymous, Geneva Switzerland c/o S.B.I. Management Ltd. (Agents)	October 31, 1980 Final disposition to be determined	Nil	22,828671	40,285	$3.90	National Health and Welfare	A.T. Rosenberg	May 31, 1978 Final disposition to be determined	Nil	Nil672	9,936	1 (lease) 4.95 average 3,077 at $6.50 5,159 at $5.00 1,700 at $2.00	Manpower and Immigration	Corbert Investments Ltd.	October 31,1980 Final disposition to be determined	Nil	Nil673	179,715	$6.23	Regional Economical Expansion,	One-Sixty-One Realty Ltd.	February 28, 1978	10,441	NilNational Health and Welfare,	Final disposition not yetSupply and Services	determined


Mr. Marshall: What is the salary scale for each student summer employment program under the various departments?


Yvon Pinard: In so far as the Department of Employment and Immigration is concerned: Non-Career Oriented Summer Programs: Canada Employment and Immigration Commission: Native Internship-$4.34 per hour; Summer Job Corps-$100-$ 163 per week; Young Canada Works-Provincial Minimum Wage; Job Exploration by Students-Determined by Individual Employers-up to $4.25 per hour; Canada Manpower Centres for Students-$4.34 per hour, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development; Indian High School Program-Provincial Minimum Wage; Indian Eskimo Recruitment and Development Program-Provincial Minimum Wage; Parks Recruitment-average $4.50 per hour; Parks Awareness-Provincial Minimum Wage; Northern Community-Minimum Wage (Yukon or Northwest Territories). Department of Health and Welfare: Health Activities Program-$135 per week; Non-medical Use of Drugs-$155-$200 per week. Department of National Defence; Reserves-$127.50 per week; Cadet Training-Nil; Community Assistance Program-$127.75 per week. Secretary of State; Hostel Program-$125-$ 160 per week; Student

Community Services-$135 per week. Consumer and Corporate Affairs: Product Safety Program-$150 per week. Fisheries and Environment: Various levels depending on assigned job-$135 to $248 per week. Justice; Public Legal Education-$140 per week. Labour Canada; Labour-$140 per week. Solicitor General: Criminal Justice System-$5.00 per hour.
In so far as the Public Service Commission is concerned: Career-Oriented Summer Programs: The Public Service Commission administers three summer programs for which Treasury Board is responsible for establishing rates of pay. The rates in effect for the summer of 1978 are those that were established by Treasury Board in 1977.
(1)	Rates for Summer Student Customs Officer (SCOP)
Revenue Canada-Customs and Excise
Rate per hour
Basic hiring rate	$4.50
(First summer of employment)
Second summer of employment	$4.90
(With one summer's experience)
Third and subsequent summers	$5.30
of employment (With two or more summer's experience)
(2)	Rates for Solicitor General Peace and Security Projects (SOL) Solicitor
Genera]
Rate per hour $5.00
Basic hiring for all students
May 26, 1978

(3)	Rates for all other career-oriented summer programs. Successfully Completed Academic Level
University	Techonogical	Rate per hourQualifying Year	1	S3.301	2	$3.702	3	$4.253	$4.754	$5.205	$5.606	$6.007	$6.40g	$6.80


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance) moved:: That the ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act laid upon the table, Thursday, May 25,1978, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, May 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien that Bill C-56, to amend the statute law relating to income tax and to authorize payments related to provincial sales tax reductions, be read the second time and referred to the committee of the whole, and of the amendment (Mr. Broadbent) (p. 5548).
Frank A. Philbrook: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak in this debate today. I should like to restrict my remarks to the budget. This is one of the measures I consider to be one of the most important that the Government of Canada has ever initiated because I think it tries to answer two main challenges in this country. The first challenge is the economy. If we had a plan to propose to the Canadian people to reduce prices for the shopper, to stimulate sales for the storekeeper, to encourage use of savings, to boost manufacturing indirectly, and to give an over-all boost to the economy, including reducing inflation which is the underlying factor in the whole set of our economic problems, we would probably all accept it eagerly.
Income Tax Act
Our second challenge is federal-provincial cooperation where there is a new thrust as part of our whole national unity picture, where admittedly we have problems in such a big country with strong and varied regional interests, with cyclical changes throughout our history in terms of centralized versus regional power, with the present trend toward increasing provincial power but still with a need for a strong central government in the interests of national unity, international competitiveness, fairness and equity across the country. Certainly with regard to these two challenges, the economy and federal-provincial co-operation, this is the sort of promise held out by at least one recent Government of Canada initiative in the last budget, namely, the proposed retail sales tax cut announced in the April budget by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien).
As we know, this type of tax cut, novel in our history, was agreed to in general at the federal-provincial economic summit conference in February, here in Ottawa. It was recommended before that, and since then, by many prominent economists in this country, and it seemed to have the general agreement of all the provinces except Quebec which delayed its decision until after the budget announcement and then, to the surprise of many of us, bucked the deal, which we can only interpret as typical separatist tactics.
Oddly enough, in the meantime many political forces which we would normally consider federalist seemed to have sided with the stand of the separatist provincial Parti Quebecois government. For example, the western provinces have had second thoughts on it, federal opposition parties have expressed concern, Quebec opposition parties have sided with the Parti Quebecois government, and even the new Quebec Liberal leader, Mr. Ryan, did so, although the other leadership contender, Mr. Garneau, took a rather courageous, constructive federalist approach on this, initially at least; and the media took a similar stand, curiously enough.
Who then still supports this deal? Certainly the Atlantic provinces in general do. The maritime provinces have done so, partly, I suppose, because all their expenses will be paid in this tax cut by the federal government. The province of Ontario supported this measure. It needs this measure and stands to benefit highly from it, if not more than any other province. Ontario still supports this measure, even though it has become somewhat quiet as this debate has become more heated.
There was a great deal of positive reaction in the editorial pages across Canada. I will not repeat the list of 17 media sources which I have in my possession. These sources represent all parts of the country. Their reaction to the announcement of the Minister of Finance was very positive.


James McPhail Gillies: Including Quebec?


Frank A. Philbrook: Yes, including Quebec. There were positive reactions in the editorials of newspapers such as Le Devoir, Le Droit, the Montreal Star and the Montreal Gazette. Also there were positive reactions in various regions of the country such as the maritimes. The tax cuts were welcomed in the mari-

May 26, 1978
Income Tax Act
times for obvious reasons. Premier Moores of Newfoundland complained that this measure helped Ontario and western Canada more than any other part of the country. At least that can be refuted to some extent.
The province of Alberta did not benefit directly because it has no retail sales tax. I should point out that Alberta received the benefit of a great deal of supportive measures in the budget for its petroleum industry. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce indicated that its executive director, Mr. Sam Hughes, was grinning like a Cheshire cat. Obviously he was pleased. Mr. John Bulloch, a small business leader, seemed pleased with the measure. In general, business leaders from the financial community were relieved that big government spending was avoided. They felt that the budget was unusually good in avoiding inflationary pressures.
Big business and retailers in the province of Ontario seem to favour the budget in moderate tones, and were pleased with the incentives for consumer spending. Ontario Treasurer Darcy McKeough said that he thought the retail sales cuts would help accelerate the province's slow rate of growth. According to recent reports, Ontario has had one of the slowest growth rates, if not the slowest, whereas it used to have the fastest. Mr. McKeough indicated that production and employment can expand through consumer purchasing. Mr. McKeough and other sources, such as the Science Council of Canada, were pleased with the incentives in the budget for research and development. Those incentives will stimulate the economy in the long term.
Financial leaders who have been critical of the economic policies of Canada in the past also spoke positively of the budget, for example, Mr. Douglas Peters, the Vice-President and Chief Economist of the Toronto-Dominion Bank, and Mr. William Mackness of Pitfield Mackay Ross, investment dealers.
The Canadian auto industry is based mainly in Ontario. For example, Ford of Canada in Oakville said it expected the 3 per cent tax cut would rev up its business to near record sales, especially since it came in time for its peak selling period in April, May and June. By the way, Ontario is the main consumer as well as the main producer of automobiles. That is why this measure is very important to that province. Recently Mr. David Lamb of American Motors was quoted as saying the following, "The sales tax cut will make 1978 one of the best years in memory".
I should like to refer to what happened on the Quebec scene. There was some deception in the action surrounding the Quebec government at the time of the budget. At one point Quebec seemed to be working in conjunction with the other provinces. It attended the pre-budget consultations, offered no alternatives, and gave no indication of its reaction. At the last minute Quebec announced it would give a decision in 48 hours, that is, after the budget was announced. Then that province stated it would not cooperate. All the other provinces had agreed to the tax cuts. Some of these provinces even offered other ideas, which Quebec should have attempted.

The Parti Quebecois announced that it wanted complete tax relief on selective items produced mainly in Quebec. It was a plan favouring that province to the detriment of other parts of Canada. As we have experienced in the past, it was another true separatist challenge, and a deliberate trap for the government and the people of Canada.
In the area of deception, the Parti Quebecois did not point out to its own people that its plan to favour Quebec had the same basic weakness for Quebec as the general tax plan had for the rest of Canada. I am referring to the area of competition by imports. At this time imports are usually lower in price and acceptable in quality. The Quebec plan set up protectionism against products from other parts of Canada but not from other countries. Even its own plan cannot benefit Quebec manufacturing greatly because the tax cuts apply to imports as well. Only a voluntary "buy Quebec-made" or "buy Canada-made" policy could accomplish this.
An important initiative which came out of the federal-provincial conference in February was the idea of encouraging our consumers to buy Canadian-made goods, even where protectionism did not exist. Like most other countries these days, Canada is caught between a need to stimulate its own economy by exporting more and importing less, on the one hand, and avoiding a vicious international trade war on the other hand. On the basis of past experience that could lead to world-wide depression and a third world war. This is identified by the current difficult GATT negotiations in Geneva. These negotiations are badly behind schedule and do not favour Canada. Canada is said to have got off lightly at the last Kennedy Round in Tokyo.
Also Canada suffers the disadvantage of not belonging to a trading bloc like other countries. We certainly do not dominate a region of the world, unless we finally yield to the wishes of the United States of America to form closer trade links-a continentalist policy-with the threat of being assimilated by our giant neighbour to the south-trading our culture for security. This trade advantage can be achieved only by Canadians on a voluntary, discriminatory basis putting economic nationalism into practice, rather than becoming involved in a trade war. The federal-provincial conference promoted this idea. Recently the Canadian government announced such a plan.
What happened in Quebec is very important as a basic learning experience for this country. One of the best analyses with regard to Quebec came from Mr. Jeffrey Simpson as reported in the Toronto Globe and Mail on May 15. The article reads as follows:
It is Ottawa that has been taking a relentless political kicking in Quebec and elsewhere. Only Ontario, which thought up the idea of a sales tax cut last October, and the Atlantic provinces, which are fully reimbursed by Ottawa, are content.
In many ways, the sales tax reductions were a highly imaginative solution to the economy's need for stimulus. The irony is that the provinces were unanimous in their belief that a sales tax cut was the most effective economic tool available.
For the First time, Ottawa took the provinces into its confidence in budget preparations. An exhaustive series of meetings and conversations were held between federal and provincial officials from March 23 to budget day April 10.
May 26, 1978

A week before the budget, senior officials from Ottawa and the provinces held a day-long meeting in Ottawa to iron out problems.
This indicates that the approach by the Minister of Finance was as thorough as possible, especially when one considers the secrecy surrounding the budget.
The question has to be asked, as the article goes on to state:
Why do most Quebec people seem to support the PQ on the sales tax cuts issue and oppose Ottawa?
He explains:
Quebeckers admire good political showmanship and a healthy sense of political dash. They got both with the Quebec government's reply.
He goes on to state:
Ottawa, thinking it was doing the country and Quebeckers a favour, walked right into trouble.
That could be read as saying "trap". The article continues:
To this day, federal politicians have not explained their case adequately to Quebeckers.
Ottawa's subsequent arguments about fracturing the Canadian market made little impact on Quebeckers who could not see that if Ontario pulled the same trick and eliminated its sales tax on, say, office furniture, dishwashers, and appliances, Quebec dealers would be clobbered.
Coming from a town that has the Ford Motor Company, I might include in that list automobiles.
At this point, partisan politics aside, I should like to give credit to the Ontario government for the statesman-like way in which it acted, and approached this particular attempt to help the economy and the individual Canadian at the same time, although I must say that this was partly a matter of self interest as well. The article goes on to state:
It is a fact that Quebec never rejected Ottawa's plan until Ottawa was politically exposed. Mr. Parizeau subsequently said Quebec had not prepared an alternative scheme, but within 48 hours of the federal budget he had produced his own plan of infinite subtlety.
Quebec of course was greatly aided by the four western provinces. Beyond these objections, the western politicians knew it is good politics to bash the federal government. And the sales tax looked like a bonanza for the industries of Ontario.
Western premiers succeeded in having it both ways. They took the federal money to defray two-thirds of the sales tax reduction, then got substantial mileage in attacking the federal government.
Manitoba wanted greater compensation from Ottawa, but that was rejected by federal officials.
I regard that merely as something that shows that Quebec could also have made an alternate suggestion, and could have cooperated if it had really wanted. Although the Minister of Finance had to change his arrangements with Quebec, and this has been a major item of dispute as to whether it represents favouritism or is a necessary expediency, I note that even Charles Lynch concedes that these things do happen quite often, particularly to Ministers of Finance.
As I mentioned before, Mr. Ryan, the new Quebec Liberal leader, seems to side with the Parti Quebecois government. However, his opponent for the leadership, Raymond Garneau, at least spoke up for the general Canadian cause.
Income Tax Act
The Minister of Finance asked for opinions from provincial finance ministers on Mr. Parizeau's proposal, and found that at least three objected to it. The Minister of Finance says he still wants a conference of provincial Finance ministers in June. I think that is very reasonable, and hopefully that will help.
Finally, in an attempt to make this thing work, it is reported that all other eight provinces agreed by phone the day of the budget to go along with the tax cuts. Therefore, there was even last minute consultation.
In other words, Ontario, the Maritimes and other provinces had accepted virtually an average tax cut of $100 per person. Why did Quebec not do so as well? They were all free to refuse the offer but, unlike Quebec, they accepted. Our Minister of Finance says he could only allow three weeks for federal provincial negotiations on this because of confidentiality in respect of this new budget approach. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) says his Minister of Finance contacted Quebec treasurer Parizeau more than a week ago to arrange a meeting. This was after the budget, so it was probably about nine days. He had not had a reply, and therefore he suggested this makes it very difficult to negotiate.
Where we are at the present time is that our finance minister is proposing to pay $40 million to Quebec through the general program, knowing that province is only carrying on a part of it, and $186 million, a much larger amount, being the balance, through income tax rebates to individual Quebecers. It is my understanding that they will be only too happy to receive this.
Admittedly the Minister of Finance is in a box, but it does not seem to be entirely of his own making. He did try to be flexible, and Mr. Parizeau did withhold his view of the necessary degree of flexibility until after what he knew to be the deadline.
Finally the media tells us that Mr. Parizeau, and we might as well accept this, will serve separation first. He may Find himself in his own box, however, as those cheques begin to arrive from Ottawa for Quebecers.
I would just like to close with a comment about Ontario's position, because that is the province I help to represent. I believe Ontario is happy, or should be, with the deal. It should be happy with the retail sales tax cuts. I think this is chiefly indicated by the provincial government. I recently quizzed the Minister of Finance in committee on the whole process, and what has happened, particularly in respect of relations with the Ontario government, and I believe he confirmed this.
The Ontario government was the first to suggest this plan. It had experienced good success with it in this province and it has been since, and I believe is still, its chief promoter, especially through Premier Davis and Darcy McKeough. Ontario is still the business centre of Canada and needs the stimulus to its economy, an economy which has been growing slower than that of the rest of Canada. I believe that economy will be stimulated right from the immediate retail level, where the whole process starts with the shopper, and the reduced retail sales tax, right back to the manufacturing level. Ontario was
5794

May 26, 1978
Income Tax Act
also prominent in suggesting the "Buy Canadian Made" program which seems worth trying and far preferable to an official government protectionist system with high tariffs, non tariff barriers, and so on.
Unfortunately, at the present time the Ontario government is taking a low profile in this debate. It seems to have been a little quiet lately while the federal government has been taking the political flak, in spite of the fact that the Quebec minister of finance even seemed to goad Ontario by suggesting that the main purpose of the tax cut was to take Ontario off the hook, implying that its government had gone too far with taxes, had a high budget, and excessive provincial debt. In reply to this premier Davis simply said "nonsense".
Before all that, the indication in respect of this dispute was that there was satisfactory consultation with all provinces, including Quebec. What we need now for the sake of this country, as we guide it through rather difficult and uncertain times, is less partisan politics, more pulling together among Canadians, more cooperation, and less party consideration, on the part of federal and provincial governments.
Certainly inflation and the sales picture are looking better. An article in the Globe and Mail this morning suggested that in at least three out of 14 Canadian cities the inflation rate was down in the month of April. At least consumer prices fell. This was particularly true in Winnipeg, if not in Quebec, where the prices fell by 0.5 per cent. It is true prices were also down in two Quebec cities, Montreal and Quebec city, but at least the Winnipeg situation shows that generally the policy is working. The main reason for prices going up was the higher cost of food items, in addition to certain other items, but we know that that is a chronic problem which nobody has been able to solve yet. The fact is that even where there were increases, this article states that they were offset by provincial retail sales tax cuts that followed the Minister of Finance's April 10 budget. Certainly, such measures can help all of Canada's economy and unity if they are given a fair chance.
I am sure that my riding of Halton in the Toronto area in the province of Ontario, the heart of business and consumer spending in Canada, is a typical one which will gain greatly from this new federal-provincial initiative.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: productivity value of that farmland. Since the capital value of land represents a very high proportion of nearly all farm units, it is understandable why this item is so significant and important to family farm units that are now incorporated or in a partnership.
A closely related corollary of this question of farmland values is the massive growth of farm debt during the last decade, but mostly after the new tax concept was introduced in
1972.	Canadian farm debt has now more than doubled from 4.6 billion in 1970 to $10 billion in 1978, a figure that is almost equivalent to the total government spending in the year 1968. You might say that farmers have borrowed themselves into prosperity. The ultimate choice had to be either to support the family farm concept or change the capital gains tax laws.
In this bill we are debating today we are fortunately seeing the changes that are needed. It should, however, be emphasized that this is a tax deferral and not a tax forgiveness. Essentially, it permits the transfer of farmlands and depreciable farm property from a farmer to his children without payment of capital gains tax at the time of the transfer, the same provision that individual farm operators have had since
1973.	It should also be noted that it will be retroactive to April 10 of this year after this or the modified legislation is passed.
It seems appropriate to sound a cautionary note that this tax item is not strictly guaranteed until after the appropriate legislation is passed. Farmers planning to take advantage of this item should check its status before proceeding to incorporate or, I might add, perhaps before dying. In addition, it should be understood that if the cost of the acquisition of the land to a child is greater than the V-day value, capital gains would be due on the difference between the two. In other words, the only way to get complete deferral of the capital gains tax would be if the son or daughter purchased the land at or below the V-day value.
In interpreting clause 14(1) which refers to subsection 70(10)(b) of the Act, Revenue Canada could very well need the wisdom of several Solomons to interpret the key phrase "substantially all of its property". The inference is that the Department of Finance does not want hobby farmers to benefit from the tax deferral provision. On page 20 of the bill the reference to subsection 73(3) of the act states that an heir has to be residing in Canada at the time of transfer in order to qualify for capital gains deferral. I suggest that so long as the heir indicates he is willing to farm in Canada and not be an absentee landlord, it does not really matter where he is living now or has been living.
Clauses 2, 3 and 4 on pages 2 and 3-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I should like to suggest to the hon. member that he is not supposed to refer to clauses of the bill on second reading but to the principle of the bill.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The particular clause I am referring to now deals with the correction of a
Income Tax Act
problem of interpretation which was created by the budget of March, 1977. This item permitted a farmer or a small businessman to avoid capital gains tax if he sold his farm or business in order to reinvest in another farm or business by the end of the following taxation year. It seems that the Department of Finance intended a broad interpretation of the phrases "for the same use" and for the same business". Revenue Canada had chosen to enforce a very narrow interpretation that denied this provision to a farmer who had, say, sold a grain farm to reinvest in an irrigated farm producing different crops.
This matter of interpretation has been corrected in Bill C-56. In addition, I received further specific clarification in the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs on May 17, as reported in the minutes. I was assured by the minister and his Revenue Canada staff that the phrase now used in this bill "for the same or similar use" will be broadly interpreted for all classes of farms and that these provisions will be retroactive to March 31, 1977, and that they will also apply to incorporated and partnership farm operations.
This is a specific example of lack of consultation and cooperation between two federal departments, the Department of Finance and the Department of Revenue, when the bill was being drafted and implemented. Yesterday's announced amendments to this bill allowing essentially the same capital gains rollover deferrals to small family type businesses that family farms presently enjoy, is a good measure and will be widely supported. My family type business friends were quick to respond to the family farm announcement with the logical question, "Why not us?" It was a valid response and certainly deserved this addition to the package. There will be general support for the fact that the deferral will apply whether the rollover occurs during the taxpayer's lifetime or at death.
Similarly with respect to the amendment announced yesterday, that portion referred to as "allowable business investment loss" is an interesting proposal with which it is difficult to find fault. The obvious comment on this last minute amendment brought before us yesterday must be, "Why did we have to wait until the eleventh hour for the necessary changes that have been so obvious for so long?"
Before leaving this discussion of agricultural tax matters in the bill it seems appropriate to suggest two additional approaches to the Minister of Finance. The first deals with the traditional and inescapable cyclical fluctuations in farm income. The general income tax averaging that is now possible does not adequately deal with the problem, neither does the stabilization approach because it fails to be specific on an individual basis for all agricultural commodities. Let us recognize that the good years have to carry the bad years. In my business that is known quite simply as good, common, cow-sense. In pre-income tax days-certainly in the west-this was the natural and necessary philosophy of every farmer and certainly of every cattleman.
I say to the minister, why not implement a program for bona fide farmers similar to the Registered Retirement Savings
80038-77%

May 26, 1978
Income Tax Act
Plan? In the good years the farmer would be able to set aside money, tax-free, in a savings plan, from which he could draw in his poor years. Once withdrawn, that money would be subject to the prevailing tax rate. It is not unlike building up feed reserves for the hard winters that do come eventually. After last winter and last year's drought, those of us from southern Alberta and southwestern Saskatchewan know what that means.
The second approach that I think the Minister of Finance might consider is one that I have offered a number of times. It is a most serious and personal suggestion and is the result of some 48 years of living in the short grass regions of southeastern Alberta and southwestern Saskatchewan. That includes all the 10 years of the drought in the thirties and the more serious one-year drought of last year. Both the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) are fully aware of my serious representations on a drought tax deferral program.
This was a carefully documented proposal advanced by myself and the Canadian Cattlemen's Association that would allow an emergency sell-down of cattle due to severe drought conditions such as last year, rather than buying expensive feed that was not available. It would allow grass and feed supplies to come back with reduced stocking rates, and at the same time would allow cattle numbers to increase slowly by natural increment.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it one o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It being one o'clock p.m., I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Mr. Speaker, when I called it one o'clock before lunch, I was referring to the proposal I made some time last year when the drought situation was very acute across southern Alberta and southwestern Saskatchewan. I proposed to the minister that he consider a tax deferral program which would encourage cattlemen to sell down their cattle in view of the obvious lack of grass and feed, then grow back in later, on the assumption there would be better years. That suggestion calls for consideration by the taxation department since the above average sell down would require tax deferral in order to avoid a punitive tax on the sales of cattle above the average.
At the time I made this proposal, the Minister of Finance did not receive support from the Minister of Agriculture and the special tax force which was created last year. I must say I was disappointed. I am confident the concept was sound, and I believe we should still have such a program available for

drought emergencies. It is not too late to plan now for the next drought.
I want to express my support for the provision in this bill to extend manufacturing and processing incentives to profits from plants established to upgrade the heavy crudes which are now in substantial supply in both Alberta and Saskatchewan. This is a necessary complement to the recent federal action to permit heavy crudes to enjoy world oil prices similar to those applicable to the new Syncrude production expected next month. It is an obvious and necessary step to complement Alberta's oil exploration and development policies if only because it recognizes both the short term and the long term need to develop our vast heavy crude resources in addition to our oil sands resources.
This is a very important debate on finance and financing over a broad spectrum of Canadian business as earlier contributions have shown. My personal responsibility is, of course, to my leader and my party. I am concerned specifically, of course with the Canadian beef cattle industry. Most members will be aware that after three or four years of distressed cattle markets, the industry has made an incredible turn-around. Over the last two months, cattle markets have advanced to record levels. We should realize that these latest market increases reflect the current drop in beef production in both Canada and in the United States, rather than as a result of inflation.
Over the last three or four years, high beef production and low cattle prices, along with escalating costs, have brought severe financial losses to cattlemen and forced the selling off of basic heards. In my remarks on the budget last month I concluded by expressing a hope that governments, politicians, and cattle producers themselves would all learn some very costly lessons from the bitter experiences of those years.
Canadian cattle producers have already initiated a new "Beef Watch" program in an effort to anticipate the cattle and beef cycle, to project trends and advise accordingly. This survey and assessment by the staff of the CCA and their Canfax resource is being published twice a year, in May and November. I should like to read certain passages from the survey into the record:
The main danger in the present beef situation is that producers may have already reduced the North American beef herd too much-and there may be a tendency for cattlemen to rebuild the beef herd too quickly.
It goes on to say:
There are now clear signs that North American beef producers have already cut back their breeding herds quite far enough. During 1978, producers should initiate a moderate rebuilding phase of around 1 xh per cent to 2Vi per cent in cow numbers. That is the major message in this edition of Beef Watch.
Later on the publication has this to say:
Consumer demand for beef will strengthen progressively over the next 3 years. That's because most of the factors that contribute to demand will have positive effects through 1980.
Per capita beef supplies will decline each of the next 3 years. Total supplies are expected to decline from 112 pounds per capita in 1977 to 88-93 pounds by 1980.
Per capita disposable incomes will continue to rise, though quite possibly at a reduced rate. We are cautiously projecting a 6% rise per year in per capita disposable income. As beef supplies decline and incomes rise, we expect that
May 26, 1978

consumers will once again return to their custom of spending at least 2.5% of their disposable income on beef. This pattern was quite constant from year to year with expenditures varying only from about 2.3% to 2.7% in 24 of the past 27 years.
However, in both 1976 and 1977, consumers spent only about 2.0% of their disposable income on beef while consuming record quantities. The price of beef was low.
Finally, in summary, Beef Watch had this to say:
The primary purpose of the Beew Watch program is to comment on the size of the national beef breeding herd. It is now evident that the high rate of female slaughter has reduced the herd to the point where domestic supplies will fall below 90 pounds per capita by 1980. It is our view that these levels are lower than optimum and represent some lost opportunities.
Further, the continuing high rate of female slaughter confirms that the herd reduction phase continues. As mentioned in the text, this process may now have proceeded too far. The retention of sufficient heifers and cows to permit a modest increase of \Vi% to 2% in the breeding herd would help to restore a favorable demand/supply balance. Certainly a continued high rate of female slauther is no longer necessary or justified.
That is a valuable comment and there are some lessons there which should be obvious to all of us, not just to the cattlemen themselves. Mr. Speaker, I want to draw these remarks to a conclusion. Here is an appropriate quotation from the current week's edition of Agriweek dated May 22, 1978. The "Backgrounder" column of that paper was commenting on the "inevitable cyclical nature of agriculture" and concluded with the following paragraph:
Understanding the cycles is the key, for both farmers and agribusiness, to the stability of individual enterprises, be they farms or businesses which exist to serve farmers. That would seem to be self-evident, yet there are few signs that these cycles are understood and properly respected. Far from devising ways to take advantage of cyclical conditions, the demands of most farm organizations and undoubtedly most farmers have been for their elimination, preferably by so convenient a means as government action. These agri-economic cycles will never be eliminated simply because their causes are beyond anyone's control. Every time government action comes to cope with conditions developing at a particular point in a cycle the inescapable result is a new and permanent government presence. And even the worst down-phase of the worst cycle ever seen is a poor excuse for that.
I say "amen" to that comment about government involvement, which attempts to tame beef cycles by legislation.
I said in my opening remarks that this is a package bill. There are some very good features in it, and I include in those the concept of the capital gains rollover provision for incorporated family farms and partnerships. In addition to that, of course, as announced yesterday, that includes incorporated small family businesses with that $200,000 limit. That certainly deserves support.
However, the problems the Minister of Finance has got himself into over his provincial sales tax approach certainly merit the idea that this bill should be split. Then I think we would see some hasty action on both parts of the present bill.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in the debate on this bill which results from the budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) I want to start off by saying that while lemmings have a bent for suicide, about once every seven years, and politicians sometimes have a
Income Tax Act
bent for suicide about every four years, I suppose one could make a case for at least trying to save the lemmings.
I and my colleagues in the New Democratic Party are not interested in assisting a Liberal government in actions which will assist in the suicide of our Confederation. We will not assist the government in playing into the hands of separatists and those who seek to break up our Confederation. We will not assist in the invasion by a national government into areas which are solely within the jurisdictions and prerogatives of the provinces. Unless and until agreement is reached between the national government and the provinces for changes in the jurisdictions of the provinces, the provinces have the sole rights in areas under their jurisdictions.
We have moved to amend this motion by asking for a one-month hoist. If the government were to accept our amendment, one month from today parliament would still be sitting, and the government could bring in an amended bill outlining agreements reached as a result of negotiations. Both the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance have said they are willing to negotiate, but they maintain an adamant, stubborn determination to proceed with the legislation in its present form.
When the government of my province of Saskatchewan brought down its budget, it incorporated measures aimed at stimulating the economy of the province which would also indirectly create employment in other provinces. I say, without blushing, that the budget brought down by the Saskatchewan government has been applauded in Saskatchewan by business, professional, and trade union circles. That budget has been applauded across the country.
In terms of numbers Saskatchewan is a small province, but I am proud to say that my province set an example and led the way, as usual. Our provincial budget has contributed to stimulating the Canadian economy. The provincial budget provided for provincial personal tax reductions amounting to $52 million. Corporation taxes on small businesses were reduced by $3 million. The budget provided a job creation strategy to create 5,800 new permanent and seasonal jobs.
The Saskatchewan provincial budget provided for revenue sharing with municipalities. This will provide an additional $20 million for the municipalities of Saskatchewan so that they can hold down mill rates. It provided for an increase in property improvement grants to homeowners in Saskatchewan in the amount of $4.5 million. It provided for a reduction of 5 per cent in automobile insurance rates, and it announced the intention of the Saskatchewan government to limit and hold down increases in utility rates, particularly for electricity and natural gas. The total benefit to our provincial economy amounts to $82 million.
In addition to that we will be incresing employment in our little province by increasing capital expenditures by the government and by the Crown corporations of Saskatchewan by $140 million, bringing expenditures to a total of $834 million for the current year. Investment in assets has been enlarged, which will be of long-term benefit to the province but which will also, in the immediate future, provide additional employ-

May 26, 1978
Income Tax Act
ment. I believe that Saskatchewan still has the lowest or second lowest rate of unemployment in Canada, but still these were the kinds of investments and the kinds of budgetary proposals which my province, many members of parliament, and many members of the public asked for and hoped that the federal government would incorporate in its budget.
On April 10 the minister of finance of the province of Saskatchewan rose in his place in the Saskatchewan legislature and announced a reduction of the Saskatchewan retail sales tax from 5 per cent to 3 per cent for a period of nine months. He said that the Saskatchewan government was committed to maintaining that reduction until September 30, but that before October 1 it would announce that the duration of that reduction would extend beyond that date. In other words, Saskatchewan will have to make a decision, like the other provinces, as to what to do after the six months, or nine months, have gone by.
Hindsight is like curling behind the glass, but in retrospect one could say that in some respects the provinces bought a pig in a poke. Except during wartime, or perhaps under the authority of the War Measures Act, I do not believe a national government has ever encroached upon provincial jurisdiction regarding economic matters. Other than in periods of national emergency, I do not believe there has ever been an occasion when the basic part of the national budget had to do with the taxation authority which lies solely within the jurisdiction of the provinces.
Saskatchewan brought its budget down early. The other provinces have not responded in the same positive manner to create employment and to get our economy moving. They have in fact, if I may use the word, been somewhat conservative because there has been conflict in this country for the last two or three years. There are some who have yelled and screamed for reduced government spending and less government intervention, and at the same time they complain when the government is not spending enough in some area in which they have interest. But that kind of pressure has been felt by provincial and national governments, and it is the kind of pressure that is inappropriate when there are officially one million people unemployed.
The sales tax reduction, which is a temporary measure, amounts to $1,147 billion across Canada. In my province of Saskatchewan the tax cut will put an additional $54 million into the hands of the Saskatchewan taxpayers. The province's share of the cost of that $54 million is $18 million. When you add that to what has already been provided in the budget by the province of Saskatchewan, $18 million to $82 million, our province's contribution to stimulating our economy and creating more employment amounts to $100 million.
I want to quote our Saskatchewan minister of finance. He said:
I want to say that our preference would have been for a permanent federal income tax reduction for low and middle income Canadians. That would have
put cash into the hands of those who need it most and surely would have stimulated consumer spending on an on-going basis.
We have requested in the House for many months that a $1.5 billion cut in personal income taxes be made to do that very thing. Saskatchewan accepted, as a less preferable option, and agreed to cooperate with, the federal government's proposal to have reductions in retail sales taxes. But the Saskatchewan minister of finance also said the following:
I regret that the federal offer to participate in this tax cut came so late. From the standpoint of budget planning, it would have been much better to have known the federal government's intentions well in advance, so that we could have introduced this additional tax cut in our budget on March 7.
A similar quandary applied to many other provinces as well. The Saskatchewan minister of finance went on to say:
Certainly, the finance ministers' meeting in January, or the first ministers' meeting in February, would have provided an ideal forum for the federal government to present such a tax proposal to the provinces. But this did not take place.
If the federal government wishes to bring in a budget whose main thrust is to intervene in a tax area that is solely within the jurisdiction of the provinces, surely it should have had the courtesy, surely it should have felt it a requirement, to discuss it openly and in public view at the meetings of the ministers of finance, or at least at the first ministers' meeting in February, and reach an agreement with the provinces which would have been included in a budget that would be subsequently presented by the federal Minister of Finance.
The government has chosen to hang its hat on its obstinate refusal to change this bill because Quebec's sales tax reduction is somehow going to balkanize our economy, is meant to help Quebec only. That kind of contention that the federal government makes falls in the face of the facts.
I want to quote the minister of finance of Saskatchewan again. He said:
Since last fall, I have been urging the federal government to move to stimulate consumer spending. More spending would gradually put idle plant capacity and the unemployed back to work. The federal government did not agree with this approach. Instead, greater tax concessions were given to industry. Manufacturing plants were encouraged to expand even though 16 per cent of our existing plant capacity was idle.
What sensible owner or operator of a manufacturing plant that is 16 per cent idle is going to spend money to expand that plant? He is just not going to do it if he is a wise and sensible businessman. While the federal government's policies were in place, what has happened? We have had more lay-offs, more shutdowns, and more Canadians out of work.
We submit, and so does the minister of finance in Saskatchewan, that these national economic policies have been misguided.
I want to turn now to a further remark of the minister of finance of Saskatchewan, so that there is no misunderstanding. Even though the Saskatchewan government agreed to cooperate and gave a commitment to reduce our sales tax by 2 per cent for nine months, the minister of finance of that province has also said:
I am concerned that the federal government intruded into an area of provincial jurisdiction by trying to establish policy for the provincial retail sales tax. A

May 26, 1978

dangerous precedent was established when the provinces were not allowed to participate in the formulation of a federal compensation formula which does not apply equally to all provinces.
Mr. Smishek went on to say:
Mr. Speaker, the western premiers made it clear, when they met in Yorkton, that they were not pleased-that the temporary sales tax reduction was not a precedent for future intrusions by the federal government into tax fields traditionally held by the provinces.
Mr. Smishek went on to say:
Let me make clear that I do not rule out-indeed I welcome-federal-provincial co-operation in fiscal matters. But this was the wrong way to go about it.
Let us look at the situation regarding Quebec's entitlement under this budget. I said earlier that our preference, and that of the government of Saskatchewan, was for stimulation to be provided by further reductions in the personal income tax for low and middle income families, which is solely within the jurisdiction of the national government.
There is another option which would be solely within the jurisdiction of the federal government. The federal government should have looked into a reduction in its own sales tax if it wished to implement a sales tax reduction to stimulate the economy. Federal sales tax revenues amount to approximately $4 billion. A federal sales tax reduction, with appropriate legislation and monitoring, could see to it that the benefit was passed from the manufacturers and the wholesalers to the consumers. Perhaps for the first time the Anti-Inflation Board would have been put to some useful work, that is, monitoring the wholesalers and manufacturers to make certain a federal sales tax reduction was passed on to consumers. That option is less preferable than a reduction in income taxes.
Instead, the government chose to intervene in an area which belonged solely to the provinces. With the benefit of hindsight, I am sure provincial officials in many provinces feel they have received a pig in a poke. In any event, some provinces agreed to cooperate, gave commitments, and are living up to them.
I should like to refer to the case of Quebec. According to the figures of the federal government, if Quebec were to reduce its sales tax by 2 per cent across the board it would be entitled to approximately $226 million by way of direct payment, tax room, or whatever. The removal of the 8 per cent sales tax in five areas in Quebec will cost the treasurer of that province $340 million, according to federal government figures. If the Minister of Finance would telephone the Saskatchewan minister of finance, I am sure he would be told to give Quebec the amount to which it is entitled. I am confident that would be the response from Saskatchewan. Also, I have some confidence that many other provinces would say the same thing.
How, when, for how long, and in what amount retail sales taxes are levied, are entirely within the jurisdiction of the provinces. If one province reduces its retail sales tax by 2 per cent for nine months across the board, and another province reduces its tax by 3 per cent for six months across the board, they have a perfect right to do so. The Minister of Finance recognized and accepted that fact. Equally it is valid for
Income Tax Act
another province to decide to remove taxes totally from certain commodities or areas of sale within its jurisdiction.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have said that Quebec is attempting to balkanize its economy, is selfish, and wants to help itself only. That theory does not hold water.
It is false, when the facts are examined. A sales tax reduction in Quebec of the 8 per cent on shoes, furniture, textiles, clothing, and hotel bills, amounts to a total of $340 million. Quebec's share, whether in the form of tax room or whatever from the federal government, is $226 million. Quebec's removal of sales tax from four of those five areas will benefit Ontario manufacturers more than it will Quebec manufacturers. I see an hon. member opposite is shaking his head. I should like to remind him that the figures pertaining to shoes, furniture, textile and clothing manufacturing, were obtained from Statistics Canada.
Referring to the retail sale of shoes in the province of Quebec, a little over half are manufactured outside Canada; 46 per cent are manufactured in Canada; 23 per cent are manufactured in Ontario; and 20 per cent are manufactured in Quebec. Surely that means the reduction in sales tax on shoes will be of at least as much benefit to Ontario manufacturers and their employees as their counterparts in Quebec. That is hardly balkanization.
Turning to the furniture industry, 88 per cent of its retail sales in Quebec is manufactured in Canada, 35 per cent is manufactured in Quebec, and 44 per cent is manufactured in Ontario. With an increase in consumer spending and purchasing of furniture in Quebec, an equal or larger benefit will result to Ontario furniture manufacturers. That can hardly be called balkanizing the Canadian economy.
The same situation applies to the clothing industry. Approximately 32 per cent of the clothing sold in Quebec is manufactured there, and 37 per cent is manufactured in the province of Ontario. A reduction in sales tax will be of equal or greater benefit to manufacturers and employees in the Ontario clothing industry as it will be in Quebec.
Quebec's decision to remove sales tax will be of benefit mainly to the low and middle income earners. This benefit applies to areas which are essential to them such as shoes, clothing, furniture, yard goods, and ordinary things. It will reduce their cost of living by approximately 8 per cent. If Quebec chooses to do it this way, it has that right. It is in our constitution.
The government and the minister of finance of Saskatchewan have no objection to the Government of Canada reimbursing, in an agreed upon manner, the $226 million to the province of Quebec. The Quebec sales tax reduction amounts to $340 million. The budget proposal has done a great deal of harm to Confederation and has hurt co-operative federalism. No political party or no government is perfect. Any political party or any government can make a mistake. This is a mistake. It will be of no political harm to the Government of Canada and the Minister of Finance if they agree to go back to the provinces, particularly Quebec, to negotiate and arrive at an agreement.

May 26, 1978
Income Tax Act
Approximately an hour ago I had a telephone conversation with the Saskatchewan minister of finance. He indicated that the Minister of Finance should go back and meet with Quebec's minister of finance in order to make arrangements to give Quebec the share it is properly entitled to, the $226 million. In fact, arrangements should be made to give every province that to which they are entitled. How Quebec chooses to reduce sales tax is Quebec's business, just as it is the business of Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia or any other province.
This business of the Minister of Finance trying to set up a budget on the basis of hotel room discussions with successive ministers and premiers, from one day to the next, just a few weeks prior to bringing down the budget, is not good enough. This is not what you could call real consultation. There is no reason this idea could not have been put on the table at the first minister's conference in February. It could have been discussed then, and the nation as a whole could have watched the ten premiers and the Prime Minister negotiating and agreeing to proposals for a national budget and budgets of nine provincial governments, reducing sales tax with federal and provincial cooperation. They could have agreed then on how the reductions would be shared. That did not happen.
The manner in which it has been carried out is just not good enough for at least four western premiers who have indicated their unhappiness about it. They will stick by what they agreed and committed themselves to; they are men of their word. Since the minister put the budget proposal to the province of Quebec and that province chose to reduce its sales tax in a different manner than the other provinces, I do not see why the federal government should think it has a problem. This is accomplishing in a different way what the national government want to see accomplished by its budget, namely, significant reductions in sales tax to increase consumer spending and thereby stimulate economic growth and employment.
The argument is not so much in opposition to what is being done by the federal government, but how it is being done. The federal government is trying to suggest to the provinces, whether they be Quebec, Saskatchewan or others, how they should levy their retail sales tax, something in respect of which the federal government has no business, jurisdiction or authority whatsoever.
It seems to me this government would do well to say it will not call this bill for another two or three weeks, or it will accept the amendment proposed by my leader, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), will go back to the other provinces to work out an agreement, and then come back in a month's time with an amended bill. I am sure the government would then find members on this side of the House ready to see it passed quickly. That is all that is needed.
I would not even expect members of this government to blush; just admit they have made a mistake and are happy to do all they can to correct it, and are willing to do what the Minister of Finance has suggested on previous occasions, namely, negotiate. Surely that would be a sign of real leadership and

statesmanship. Surely that would restore some confidence in cooperative federalism. That would be a move toward national unity instead of playing into the hands of the separatists.
As things stand now those separatists can suggest that, in a tax field that is entirely provincial, Ottawa is trying to interfere, and Confederation is not working for them. In this way the Minister of Finance and the Liberal government have played into the hands of those who want to destroy Confederation.
There are other ways in respect of this bill or a subsequent one in which the government could help Canadians through our present economic difficulties. Let me put forward one suggestion which I know the Prime Minister has received and has said has been turned over to the Minister of Finance for serious consideration.
We require an amendment to our income tax laws that would do away with the standard $100 deduction for charitable contributions. The standard deduction would then only apply in respect of medical expenses. Those who give to charitable or voluntary organizations would get credit in respect of income tax, but only if they actually made contributions. A tax credit of 50 per cent, as has been suggested by voluntary organizations, would be allowed in respect of those contributions. This would encourage even bigger contributions by Canadians to these worthwhile organizations. The Association of Voluntary Organizations in Canada is unanimous in this suggestion, and this includes the Canadian Cancer Society, the YMCA, and a host of others.
An increase in the funding of those organizations would benefit not only those who are the beneficiaries of their activities, but also those who would be hired to staff the organizations in order to carry out additional work. The organizations would then be in a position to do an even better job in communities across this country.
This is a provision which may not look like very much at first blush, but one which would provide the incentive and opportunity for Canadians to do an even better job in helping one another through these voluntary organizations. It would also stop some of those who are now taking advantage of the standard $100 deduction as a credit on income tax without giving a nickel. Let us remove that provision and provide a tax credit for those who now give generously and might then give even more generously.
Such a change would be helpful and useful to the communities in Canada. It would encourage people to work together even more than they now are, and would be a symbol or a sign of how this parliament and this government are making significant efforts toward fostering national unity and cooperative federalism.
I began my remarks by saying we are not going to assist this government to precipitate the suicide of our Confederation. I do not care if Liberals want to commit suicide, but we are not going to offer that kind of assistance. I hope members opposite will accept our amendment. I plead with them to return to the finance ministers of Quebec and the other nine provinces for

May 26, 1978

consultation, and then to come back to this House in two weeks or a month with a new bill. We would be agreeable, even though this meant sitting a few days in July. Such a new bill would confirm that Quebec, like the other provinces, has the right to levy sales tax in whatever manner it wishes, because this is solely within provincial jurisdiction.
Quebec as well as the other provinces would then get the money or the tax room to which they have a right under the federal government's new proposal. Quebec is entitled to $225 million and it should receive that amount. We do not need this sleazy idea of paying $85 to each income taxpayer in Quebec. This is another thing that will harm Confederation and play into the hands of the separatists. This is a typical Jimmy Gardiner trick, and it will not wash.
The government must admit it has made a mistake, and if it does so it will be applauded. The government must come back with an amended bill. It will get the support from all sides of the House and it will reinforce what is the constitution of Canada, the jurisdictions of the national government and the provinces in various tax areas. It will weaken the argument of those who would break up our confederation and who say that it does not work. It is a positive contribution. I say for my province of Saskatchewan that the government would have the full support and co-operation from us in that kind of endeavour. The minister of finance of Saskatchewan has said "Give Quebec the amount they are entitled to by whatever method you agree on, $225 million. They get no more, no less, than any other province."
Quebec is doing this differently. Well, so is Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Ontario, and the Atlantic provinces. Whether it is tax cuts across the board or tax cuts on certain commodities, it is the business of the provinces. When are my good friends on the government side going to admit they have made a mistake, that there was not sufficient consultation and that all of this could have been arrived at and agreed to before the provinces brought down their budgets? All of this could have been arrived at and agreed to by the time the Minister of Finance brought down his budget in this parliament.
I beg the government, Mr. Speaker, not to proceed in the manner in which they presently intend. It will only do harm and it can easily be avoided. Here is an opportunity where they can show some leadership and statesmanship, and they will get the support of the members on this side of the House as well. I urge the government to accept our proposal, to delay further dealing with this bill until they have returned to the provinces, obtained an amended agreement, and brought back another bill with those amendments. This parliament will deal with it quickly and Canada will be much stronger for it.
[ Translation]


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, to begin with, I also would like to express my support to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) for his excellent budget of last April
Income Tax Act
10. And since I believe that this is the right place to express support or disagreement for such a taxation measure which has been making the headlines since April 10, I want to take this opportunity to do so in the House of Commons and shall explain why. In the 40 minutes alloted to me, Mr. Speaker, I shall deal mostly with that most controversial part of the budget which provides for a rebate of provincial taxes, and an obvious problem with this part of the budget is precisely that it has been called the provincial tax rebate.
After long consultations-I do not want to go over all the negotiations which preceded the budget speech on April 10 last-but after long consultations starting in October 1977 and continuing afterwards following the representations made in February and March 1978 by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce according to taxation and economy experts like the C.D. Howe Institute, everyone seemed to agree that the quickest and most direct way to give the Canadian economy the impetus it so urgently needed, was to reduce the sales tax, which comes under provincial jurisdiction. For many years, the provinces have been pressing the Federal government for more participation and a greater say in major fiscal policies, discussions, or decisions. So, in keeping with their requests, in October 1977 all the provinces were consulted, starting with the premiers, down to the ministerial and finally the high executive levels of the provincial departments of finance.
Following the advice of the experts that I referred to earlier, who had supported this tax rebate, and after having figured out the implications in each provincial department involved, provincial authorities have chosen to accept that proposal and cut their taxes for a fixed period to stimulate the economy immediately rather than abolishing a tax permanently. By abolishing or removing a tax for six or nine months, the economists and experts thought that people would be encouraged to make certain expenses earlier, which would stimulate the economy.
While two provinces had some reservations about the Minister of Finance's proposals, some adjustments and arrangements were made to meet their expectations and the previous speaker, my hon. colleague from Regina-Lake Centre comes from one of those provinces, Saskatchewan. Those two provinces expressed some reservations and arrangements were made so that they would join the program. And indeed an arrangement was made to their satisfaction.
The day after the budget we heard from the province of Quebec that this measure would penalize Quebeckers and their industries, that it was again an invasion by the federal government in a provincial jurisdiction when the province was seeking to have more say in the decision making process. However, Quebec remained silent during all those consultations and even during the three weeks preceeding the budget. There was no appeal or counter proposals from the Quebec minister of finance. Of course we should not expect anything else because his party wants to take Quebec out of Canada. So it would not

May 26, 1978
Income Tax Act
be reasonable to expect from them a favourable attitude towards the federal proposals. They are deceitful, Mr. Speaker. They wait until all other provinces accept the project or the proposal because it is fiscally interesting and feasible, easily controled and favourable to all parts of the country without discriminating against any industry.
The day after the introduction, the finance minister stated that he was against the proposal made by the federal government. That is the same man who three years ago, perhaps four, Mr. Speaker-1 forget because it is not my favourite topic- launched a newspaper called Le Jour which failed. Still it was an undertaking conceived, designed and developed by that famous finance minister who is apparently living in a fantasy world. He thinks of himself as a cow watching a train go by. Such was his own admission in the National Assembly in reply to a question put by a member of the opposition. He said: You know of the difficulties in which the Minister of Finance now finds himself; me, I am somewhat like a cow watching a train go by. Perhaps those comments are unparliamentary, Mr. Speaker, but they were uttered by the Quebec finance minister and his description of the situation faithfully mirrors what I think of him.
So the question is whether Quebeckers are really penalized and how a minister who is supposed to be an economist can reach such a conclusion. Mr. Speaker, I would like to consider the impact of the proposal made by the Minister of Finance on the economy and the collection of provincial taxes. I see that the respected member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) has not left yet; I wish he would stay a few more minutes, Mr. Speaker, so that he can see the other side, the other way of analyzing this tax cut program.
As I indicated earlier, a 3 per cent tax cut over a period of six months will stimulate purchasing. A number of people will buy certain goods earlier than they expected, for instance to replace carpeting, furnishings, a suit or what have you. However we suggested a six-month cut for those who accepted the scheme and nine months for those who prefer the nine months, without discriminating against any industry, except of course alcoholic beverages, cigarettes and such things.
So this increase which could normally and legitimately be expected would have reduced the loss that the provinces will suffer, will reduce the loss that the provinces expect to have, because if you figure it out, Mr. Speaker, it takes a 14 per cent increase in sales to compensate for the 1 per cent which the provinces will have to pay. Early indications in provinces other than Quebec show that not one province will experience a loss because in fact of this 14 per cent increase in sales that can compensate for the 1 per cent paid by the provinces. So it is not a bad deal.
We are not trying to penalize the industries which are doing well in those provinces, we do not discriminate; as for myself,

Mr. Speaker, I am not altogether convinced that helping only a few industries will lead to economic recovery. I believe that the universal formula of promoting industry is the best, the simplest and the one that offers the most leeway. And I am convinced that on the economic and fiscal levels, helping four industries which perhaps are not doing well-and I have figures, Mr. Speaker, to disprove some arguments of the Quebec finance minister in that regard-that helping four industries is perhaps not the best way to ensure economic recovery in a country or a province. As I indicated a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, a 14 per cent increase in sales of all goods subject to the tax cut will compensate the province for the loss it would have incurred without the increase. We can well expect at least a 14 per cent increase, but more probably closer to 20 per cent. If on the other hand you take away the 8 per cent tax on certain goods, if you remove it completely, there is no way the province can get its money back, even with a 40 per cent increase in sales, which is doubtful. In my view the increase could be limited to approximately 15, 20 or 22 per cent, but even if it were 50 per cent, there is no way the province of Quebec could get the money back on those 8 per cent that were removed. We are talking here of course in the case of the province of Quebec of the 6 per cent on its goods, because 2 per cent will be paid back by the federal government.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is their business.


Maurice Dupras: The hon. member is suggesting that is their business. When the deal is bad we should not be intimating it is a good one because that is their business.
Mr. Speaker, how is it possible to suggest we should penalize this country's economy, deprive the economy and the Canadian people of several initiatives because of an alleged invasion to a degree of a provincial jurisdiction? My colleague from Regina-Lake Centre suggested earlier that such an invasion by the federal government had not been seen since the war years. But apparently the economic situation was serious at the end of 1977. The first ministers at the federal-provincial conference all expressed a desire to sit down with the federal government and prepare measures to counteract, to put the economy back on the right track, to solve economic difficulties. In those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance candidly trusted all ministers of finance. He was right eight times out of nine, which is not such a bad score. I feel his batting average is excellent.
Of course it is normal that after the fact there is a temptation to suggest this was a federal invasion. But we were opposing this, we only joined the program because they themselves were urging us to do so. There is no need to quote from the multiplicity of speeches that were made on the subject by the majority of Canada's ministers of finance, urging action and inviting the federal government to come up with proposals.

May 26, 1978

Well, they did. The federal government made some proposals and that is how it happened.
But, Mr. Speaker, to give a new impetus to the economy of a country, it is not enough to give help to four industries if we want to make sure that things pick up, especially in view of the dead loss the Quebec government will incur by abolishing the 8 per cent tax in their case, since 2 per cent will be reimbursed by the Canadian government. That loss will amount to something like $120,000, $140,000 or $150,000 depending on the volume of business. The Quebeckers should ask their minister of finance, Mr. Parizeau, to reverse his silly decision and accept the proposal of the federal government in which case there is no loss because, as I said before, and I shall repeat it for those who were not here, an increase of 14 per cent in sales would allow a reimbursement to the province of that 1 per cent loss it will incur by reducing the 4 per cent sales tax as opposed to joining the national program that would reduce it by 5 per cent.
Of course, with the benefit of insight after the fact, Mr. Speaker, it is an easy statement to make: Had we been consulted, we would have liked to study an entirely different proposal. 1 say, Mr. Speaker, that with the results that notorious Minister of Finance has had with the newspaper Le Jour on two occasions with his concept of business, as I said before, he seems to live in a world of fantasy. It is no wonder, Mr. Speaker, that he should have preferred to show off in front of the Quebec population and tell them boldly that he was cancelling the 8 per cent tax on furniture, clothing, shoes and textiles. Of course, it was also an unexpected opportunity for him to be forgiven for having taxed children's clothing. Quebec was probably the only province where children's clothing was taxable. By abolishing the sales tax on clothing, footwear, textiles and furniture, he saw this as an opportunity to be forgiven. And it is true, as the previous speaker said, that most of the furniture sold in the province of Quebec is not manufactured in Quebec but in Ontario. I am convinced that Ontario manufacturers will not gain anything from that; merchants and retail dealers of Quebec are the ones who will benefit from this measure. And following the refusal of the province of Quebec-I should not say the province of the Quebec but its present government-to join in a national fiscal program, I do not think that the public will be prepared to further encourage Quebec manufacturers. And I also think, Mr. Speaker, that this is a discriminatory way to stimulate the economy.
If I lived in the Joliette riding and belonged to the Joliette chamber of commerce, the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) would know what I think of Mr. Parizeau's proposal, since there are many corporations in Joliette which cannot benefit from this rebate, and neither can the Bigelow corporation which makes carpets in Sainte-Agathe-des Monts, in my own constituency. And these people are outright insulted by
Income Tax Act
this discriminatory approach to helping Quebec industries and stimulating the economy.
First of all, I am thinking of the unions, of the unionized workers of the Hupp Canada corporation, in l'Assomption, who do not benefit from this rebate, this tax cut, of the employees of Westinghouse in Trois-Rivieres, I should say of the 600 Westinghouse employees in Trois-Rivieres, of the employees of the Raleigh corporation in Waterloo, Drum-mondville, Cowansville or elsewhere in the province of Quebec, who do not benefit from it either. In Saint-Germain, for instance, Pacific Mobile, with 300 workers, is excluded from this tax cut, as are the 700 Lowney's employees in Sherbrooke who are terribly discriminated against because they have not been chosen to benefit under this national program.
In this case, Mr. Speaker, it is only normal that workers who manufacture cans should stage a demonstration in Quebec City because the sales tax on those products is going up by 5 per cent. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, why some unions in the industries I mentioned did not stage any demonstrations in Quebec City to demand that 3 per cent tax cut on their products, which would have allowed the province of Quebec to increase its revenues and to stimulate its economy, without having to suffer a loss in tax receipts for all that, because as I was saying earlier, a 14 per cent increase in sales compensates for this 1 per cent cut.
So, it is quite unbelievable, Mr. Speaker, that the Quebec minister of finance, who is an economist, did not realize that. No wonder, since he was the one who led his fellow citizens in the venture of Le Jour and he is responsible for salary lost by a great number of journalists when this newspaper went bankrupt. There are so many things that could be said on the manner in which the economy of the province of Quebec is managed, Mr. Speaker. We learned recently, we read this week press reports about replies to questions put by the opposition in Quebec City, that members have been calling for the tabling of the Bonin report, a report which has reviewed the economic opportunities of the province of Quebec should it separate, that is the separatist government is bent on proving, by means of well-organized propaganda, that the separation of Quebec could be to the economic advantage of Quebeckers. It is quite an aberration to believe this, but that is what they are dreaming about. So, a high official by the name of Bonin was asked to conduct a study. This study has been completed but Mr. Levesque refuses to table it as his premise that separation was economically favourable for Quebec is disproved in this report. And I would bet my last dollar, Mr. Speaker, that this report will never be tabled.
Instead of selecting four so-called "soft" Quebec industries, Mr. Speaker, they could have given some thought to traditional sectors of the economy. There is a saying in Quebec which goes this way: a healthy construction industry means a healthy provincial economy and they say in the United States: that if the automobile industry is doing well, so is the U.S. economy

May 26, 1978
Income Tax Act
as a whole. And the same can be said about Canada particularly in my own area as we have also 3,000 people working for General Motors in Ste. Therese a few miles south of my riding, and they are not favoured by that 3 percent cut either, and I wonder, Mr. Speaker, when they will go to Quebec requesting a sales tax cut on their products. If workers who feel they have been hurt by this new 5 percent tax levy can demonstrate to voice their discontent, surely workers who have been overlooked in the sales tax cut can do likewise in fact, I invite the employees in the General Motors' plant in Ste. Therese to demonstrate and demand from their provincial government the national programme that has been proposed and was accepted by all other provinces. Other provincial Finance ministers have understood the situation and realized that the recommandation made by C.D. Howe Institute and others was certainly the best way to boost the economy.
It is said that the textile industry was a weak sector in the province of Quebec. According to the data provided by one of the main textile industries in the province of Quebec, the Dominion Textile Ltee., for the third quarter of 1977, their sales have reached $145,700,000. which represents a $406,000,000 increase for the nine first months of the previous year, or a 12 percent increase over the previous year. And those figures, Mr. Speaker, were released on and apply to their 1977 financial year, long before Parizeau proposed his new fiscal policy. So it is no longer a soft sector and these higher sales are certainly due to the measures taken by the Canadian government in 1977 in imposing quotas on the importations of textiles. It is therefore wrong to state that the textile industry is part of the soft sector. Perhaps some industries in the textile field can say they are in a weak sector, but this is surely not true of most of the thriving textile industry of the province of Quebec which has hired additional employees during the last eight or ten months and has increased the volume of its sales. That is obvious in the report submitted by the Dominion Textile Company.
Of course, since November 1976, the economy of the province of Quebec is going down and it is normal. I mentioned earlier an industry which should have been helped by a tax rebate, that is the Quebec building industry because since 1976 generally speaking there has been a slowdown of at least 75 per cent in that industry. I want to emphasize that is was 75 per cent, Mr. Speaker, because the media, especially those from the province of Quebec tend to censure what we say in this House. This is why sometimes we have to repeat to be sure we are understood. There was a 40 per cent decrease compared with last year, that's 1977, and this is very serious. The point, Mr. Speaker is not to find amusing formulas, window-dressing formulas such as the 8 per cent tax rebate on hotel rooms to stimulate this sector of our economy. While I am on the subject Mr. Speaker, it is rather amazing to note that every-time the question of helping the poor comes up in the province of Quebec, it is always the wealthy who do bring it up. The 8

per cent tax on hotel rooms was taken off because, once again, this notorious Finance Minister found out that the minimum living wages in his province, which are unique in Canada and in the rest of the world, have a tremendous detrimental effect on the Quebec tourist industry. To such a degree, Mr. Speaker, that in certain areas of the province, such as Montreal and Quebec City hotels suffered losses of 60 per cent over 1966 and 35 to 40 per cent from 1976 to 1977, which has meant that major hotels in Montreal have had only a 45 per cent occupation rate in 1977 whereas to be profitable, a hotel which wants to give a good service must have at least a 75 per cent occupation rate.
Because of all the requirements imposed upon the Quebec tourist industry because of the minimum living wages which are much higher than the minimum wages of all other areas of North America-in many cases they are at least twice as high-and also because of the tax burden placed upon the tourist industry, we could read in a recent newspaper report published last Monday or Tuesday, that the tax burden per room in the province of Quebec, in Montreal, is around $1,835 whereas in certain tourism oriented areas of the country, it is about $400. There is therefore no need to be an economic expert to see that the Quebec industry is not able to compete with the tourist industry outside Quebec. It is probably for this reason that the provincial minister decided to help once again the poor and reduce the tax of 8 per cent. This will perhaps convince certain members of the provincial cabinet to spend their 1978 summer vacations in Quebec rather than in Old Orchard or somewhere.
However, Mr. Speaker, the impact that such a tax reduction might have will not be felt for a few years yet because it is mostly aimed at the convention industry which can fill the major hotels for three or four days and bring in people who spend an average of $75 to $100 each outside of hotel charges, of course. There are the people at whom the reduction is aimed. Those are the people who have been chased away by our minimum living wages of over $3 in Quebec, which is twice as much as in many other provinces. Those are the people we want to get back. This will not be possible before a couple of years, because such arrangements are always made 18 to 36 months ahead of time. For instance, the conventions which were not held in Quebec this year were cancelled in the spring of 1977 and in the fall of 1976. The stimulating effect we had anticipated with our 3 per cent tax reduction for the whole economy, for all products manufactured in Canada, would indeed have had an immediate effect far more important than reducing the tax on hotel rooms.
Then, Mr. Speaker, tax is removed on shoes. I believe we all want to get the highest salary possible for our work. On the other hand when you need things such as are manufactured in this country, you go out and buy products manufactured abroad, and this is true concerning shoes, since 40 or 50 per
May 26, 1978

cent of all shoes sold in Quebec are manufactured not in Canada but in other countries specially in Europe.
Practically the same, Mr. Speaker, may be said concerning electrical appliances. Our manufacturers are not better off with Mr. Parizeau's tax reduction. He should have moved in favour of those industries as that sector has lost the greatest number of jobs because European and Japanese products are more competitive. We should improve employment in this industry where wages are quite high. With respect to textiles, that industry did not develop so well, even though it is not true for the whole of the industry, but certain areas of that industry have failed to remodel or automate their facilities as fast as was done elsewhere and wages did not follow the general trend in Canada. Mr. Speaker, that sector should have been helped instead of the shoe industry, for instance, because a high percentage of those products are not manufactured in the province of Quebec.
The same applies to all appliances, washing machines, dryers, and also carpeting, Mr. Speaker. There is a carpet manufacture in my riding and as I said earlier, the workers in that plant are simply insulted because they cannot benefit from that sales tax reduction. Once again, I wonder why the union has not yet staged a demonstration to show that they disagree with the economic policy of the government of the province of Quebec.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it is my firm belief that it is economically unsound to think that it is possible to put the economy back on its feet by favouring one, two, three or even four individual industries. When the industrial incentive program was developed, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion just about ignored sectorial industries and gave special assistance to the development of certain geographical areas and it is rather along that line that Quebec should have taken action.
If there were a proposal to be made, if for some reason the Quebec government wanted to encourage the industrial community in the province, they should have offered a proposal, they should have first responded to the proposal made by our Minister of Finance and suggested that some of the provisions in the program be made applicable in some areas of the province rather than in some others, or that some areas be excluded from the program, and not have discriminated against certain industries. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I say this here, as I would do elsewhere, and this is the place to do so, I support without reserve the provisions included in the budget which the Minister of Finance has brought forward and I hope that the media will play the role which morally is theirs. I am referring especially to those in the province of Quebec which will consider the proposal made by the Minister of Finance, the national proposition, before it is too late. Because, on the one hand, Mr. Speaker, one cannot try to make the people of the province of Quebec believe in sovereignty-association and pretend to be open to any proposal or any offer, and on the
Income Tax Act
other hand to scorn any proposal coming from the federal government. Those people do not seem to realize that they lose all credibility and that all they deserve is the scorn of business circles in the province of Quebec towards an administration as clumsy and as unhealthy for the economy of the province.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member allow me a question?


Maurice Dupras: Yes.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I wonder if the hon. member, who is a good friend, would like to compare the situation of taxpayers in Quebec, given the current proposal of the Minister of Finance, and that of taxpayers from the province of Alberta. It has even been suggested that the Minister of Finance said that he had agreed to make concessions in favour of the oil industry in the province of Alberta in the future, perhaps for the next five to eight years. Now what is the taxpayer from the province of Alberta going to gain from that, considering that all taxpayers should be treated the same way? I am asking you for a new proposal because the Alberta taxpayer is definitely at a disadvantage compared to some-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order.


Maurice Dupras: Mr. Speaker, this question is becoming a speech but I would like to say to my friend and colleague from Edmonton West that I had written a note here to remind me to talk about the compensation program for Alberta oil prices and the openmindedness of the Alberta government. You will be surprised, Mr. Speaker, and my colleague will be surprised too when I tell them how much I admire the Alberta government and the Albertans who agreed to contribute to relieve the population of the province of Quebec-I refer to Quebec because this province is involved in the tax reduction program-by accepting the oil prices compensation program which has already benefited the people of the province of Quebec to the tune of $3 billion. And the Albertans, and I say so because it is exactly what happened, did not try to finesse with the Department of Finance or the 1974 federal proposal. They agreed and indeed it is partly taxes which might be paid to Alberta that Albertans have agreed to surrender to Quebecers.
As for the other part of his question, Mr. Speaker, there are some provisions in the budget which favour the citizens of Alberta. He is acquainted as well as I am with those provisions. So the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) agrees with me as he often does, Mr. Speaker. There is also the speech made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner)-


An hon. Member:: Just read the speech made by the Minister of Industry Trade and Commerce!

May 26, 1978
Income Tax Act


Maurice Dupras: Mr. Speaker, through you, I should like to say to the Leader of the Opposition that in his excellent speech, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce deals with Alberta and the benefits it derives from the budget.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, as I rise to participate in the debate on Bill C-56, to amend the statute law relating to income tax and to authorize payments related to provincial sales tax reductions, I am struck by the inept method that is being used by the government to solve Canada's economic problems. The bill, of course, flows from what we now call the unwanted budget. The Minister Finance (Mr. Chretien) was forced to bring in a budget. He did not want a budget. This budget was brought down less than 20 days after the Minister of Finance said that it would not be useful to have one and that it would be wise to wait. Canadians had five days' notice before the budget was introduced. Domestic and foreign pressures forced the Minister of Finance to reverse his position on presenting a budget. In Canada he was faced with a growing public outcry as more and more Canadians realized that the economic policies of this governent had failed. Even though the minister wanted to take more time to study the effect of his October economic measures; trends of unemployment, inflation, and real estate sales clearly showed that they had failed. The budget was delayed until the minister understood what most people had realized long ago. In foreign countries he was faced with vanishing investor confidence. The value of the Canadian dollar was declining rapidly, and even with the Trudeau government's efforts made after denials of intervention, the government was incapable of stopping it.
This reluctance to present a budget is understandable. The presentation of such a budget requires the government to reveal its forecasts for economic performance in the current year and to exhibit the government's spending and revenue cuts to public scrutiny. The Minister of Finance did not wish to admit that the forecasts made in the economic statement of October were proved wrong only six months after they were made. He did not want to reveal a serious error in the forecasting of the size of the budgetary deficit. The Minister of Finance did not wish to present a budget because a budget would have shown that the economic policies of the government had failed, and that is what the budget has shown.
Let us discuss the sales tax reductions which are included in this bill. At best, they can be seen as stop-gap measures. As the government has admitted, they will last for only six or nine months. The effect of these sales tax reductions will be to reduce consumer prices by 1 per cent, and that is a welcome development, but the increase in consumer prices between February and March alone was over 1 per cent. Thus, the benefit of the sales tax reduction will be swept away quickly by continuing high inflation.
In most provinces the sales tax cut will end in either six or nine months. Prices will then jump up the 1 per cent that is now being shaved off. So as I say, it is a temporary and

stop-gap measure. The effect on inflation will be limited to the six or nine months, depending upon which province we are talking about. Even with the cut, inflation for the year is still going to average at least 7 per cent. Price levels have already surpassed the target for the end of the controls program in October of this year. In the 36 month attack on inflation, consumer prices were predicted to rise by a total of 19 per cent. Already, after 30 months of controls, consumer prices are more than 20 per cent higher, and there is still half a year of price increases to come. Even so, the rate of 19 per cent as predicted is not an acceptable rate.
No country with an economy like that of Canada can go along with a rate averaging even 6 per cent per annum over a lengthy period of time. The experience in the United States has shown-and the government there is very much aware- that the rate there, which is much lower than ours and which is presently at the 6 per cent level, is still too high, and the United States is taking measures to reduce that rate drastically.
I suppose we should not be surprised to see some stop-gap measures coming from the government opposite. I think these measures are very much like the Local Initiatives Program, Opportunities for Youth programs, Canada Works and others which have been shown to be stop-gap measures and which did nothing for long-term employment or long-term economic improvement. Even in the housing industry, which is supposed to be the bellwether of the economy, we find government gimmickry with such programs as the Assisted Home Ownership Program, which simply puts government-financed houses in competition with apartment buildings Financed through the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
In many rural areas people are simply moving out of apartments and into AHOP homes, and when the government starts to take action on its mortgages, they move on with no equity and no stability for themselves or for their communities. Also in the housing field we have gimmickry like the assisted rental program, which has encouraged private investors to buy or build rental housing on the basis that they can rent it at lower than economic rents knowing that the government will give them the cash necessary to operate the units, albeit that that cash advance is added on as a mortgage and there is a charge against the title. All the program does is defer the date the owner of a property has to repay the money, and unless inflation continues in Canada at its present rate, those investors are destined for bankruptcy. Any program of the government that is predicated on continuing inflation at high levels has to be considered to be gimmickry.
Unlike the measures I have been speaking about, the sales tax gimmick I mentioned earlier is a huge intrusion into provincial jurisdictions. It is a move to set Canadian against Canadian. I ask hon. members to compare the treatment of the residents of Alberta with the treatment of the residents of British Columbia, and the treatment of residents of British Columbia with the treatment of residents of Quebec. I ask hon. members to compare the attitude of the government of Quebec with that of the federal government. This measure was
May 26, 1978

so inadequate, that this week the Minister of State (Small Business) (Mr. Abbott) had to announce that he was going to introduce other measures to stimulate business in his sphere of interest.
Even the controls program which we are just now phasing out was harmful to Canada's economy. In the first place, it made investors nervous and delayed economic growth by limiting wage increases and reducing the amount of money in the hands of consumers. Consumers can hardly be expected to increase their demands on the economy and spend more money if the government is going to limit the amount of money that is put into their hands.
Looking at the situation with regard to taxation, and capital gains in particular, we can see quite clearly that the capital gains regulations as they exist have inhibited economic growth and have been a great disincentive to investment insecurities. Two days ago we on this side had a motion calling for a special committee of the House. I thought that the motion was apt and timely, but of course it was denied by the government. I thought it tied in very nicely with the results of the Royal Commission on Corporate Concentration which after three years had made its report at last. The observations in that report were that the capital gains had yielded less than 1 per cent of the total tax revenues in 1976 and that half of that was paid by corporations. On page 275 of the commission's report we find the following statement:
Estimated yields from the tax on capital gains rose from $54 million in 1972 to $235 million in 1975, slightly less than half of which was paid by corporations. These are very modest sums indeed, especially when compared with the total federal tax revenues of $32.4 billion in 1976/1977.
A little later, the report states:
In exchange for a relatively small sum in tax revenue and a partial move toward more equity, Canada's tax system was made much more complex and expensive to operate. The question is, was it worth it? We do not think so. There is no reason to expect that the capital gains tax will ever make a significant contribution to the government's tax revenues. It certainly will not do so while the Canadian economy remains in its present depressed state, and the existence of the tax is one depressing factor that the economy can ill afford at this time. The design of the capital gains tax ensured that it would do little in terms of equity, and the most recent amendments to the tax law are a further step backward in this sense. The result is a complicated and costly addition to the tax system and a disincentive to business investment, with little compensating benefit.
Clearly that indicates that the present policies for stimulating the economy are inadequate. Our motion called for creation of a special committee which would have been able to examine such ideas as those for which the government had already paid a big dollar.
I want to look also at the income tax aspects of this bill as well as the report of the royal commission. Certainly changes have been made to the income tax. I am not sure how good they will be in helping the economy out, but let me run briefly through them. Tax changes will be made on rail transportation and on expenditures on scientific research. There will be measures to encourage the production of energy-increased depletion allowances, measures to help production of Canadian films and to help employees at remote work sites, and meas-
Income Tax Act
ures that will affect many elderly Canadians with registered retirement savings plans. We were pleased to note that efforts by members on this side and the Consumers' Association of Canada have resulted in progressive changes to the rules regarding registered retirement savings plan withdrawals after the age of 60.
Measures were introduced to help capital gains tax problems arising on the family transfer of shares in family farm corporations and partnerships. Again I was dismayed to note that none of the small business people in Vancouver-Quadra, where we have no farms, were going to be helped by this measure. To illustrate the inadequacy of this bill and of the budget measures, let me point out that only yesterday the Minister of Finance announced that there will be similar relief in the way of capital gains tax given for private businesses which will be able to be passed on within a family without attracting the tax at the time of death.
After a great debate not many months ago-I guess it was after the last budget-concerning the proposals as they affect life insurance, I find that again changes are proposed to the rules relating to interest paid on insurance policy loans. I suggest that this is as unclear as it was some months ago. I hope that in committee of the whole the minister will be able to solve some of the problems existing in that area.
On the income tax aspects I wanted to mention what the royal commission has said in that regard as recorded at page 274 of the report. It stated:
It is abundantly clear from what we have said in this chapter that savings over the next few years will be inadequate to finance the necessary business investment and that current unexpected risk-return ratios will be inadequate to induce risk capital investment. This and the other serious problems of the Canadian economy which we reviewed briefly in chapter one concern us deeply.
The commissioners say that tinkering will not work and that major changes are needed to our income tax system. I am not saying that this is my policy, and I am certainly not saying it is my party's policy to do what the royal commission indicates is necessary, but I am a chartered accountant who understands, probably better than most in the House who are not chartered accountants, some of the complications in the income tax and accounting laws and I have an idea of the huge costs involved in the legal advice needed in dealing with the income tax laws.
I think it is most important that we have some method of minimizing these legal costs for the ordinary taxpayers of Canada. After all, in the end it is the people who deal with these corporations who are required to pay the taxes. What we need is some forward looking ministers, particularly in the finance portfolio. I was thinking of that today as I prepared these notes and I was forced to look at the list of finance ministers in the last 15 years. There has been no fewer than six of them-most of them have disappeared now. Some hon. members may remember the names: Gordon, Sharp, Benson, Turner, Macdonald.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of

May 26, 1978
Constituency Records
private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills and notices of motions.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to proceed with Bill C-244 in the name of the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) and to stand all preceeding bills.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Hon. members have heard the request of the parliamentary secretary. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton) moved: that Bill C-244, respecting the preservation and surrender of constituency records, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill, which is entitled "An Act respecting the preservation and surrender of constituency records", is in many ways like a devil's advocate bill. I am bringing it forward because I think an important issue is involved and there should be some open discussion on it. I am not necessarily wedded to the exact form in which I have drafted this bill. I would like to see this subject matter referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, where perhaps it could be altered or a new bill drafted.
There have been discussions regarding bills dealing with conflicts of interest for members of parliament and so on. Let me outline generally the reason for bringing in this bill and why members of parliament cannot shy away from certain duties. We must come to grips with this problem and resolve it.
If a client has certain work done on his behalf by a lawyer, then the lawyer opens a file in his name. The lawyer is required to keep that file. It is not his file, it belongs to the client. If the client subsequently requests his file in order to take it to another law firm, as long as his bill is paid, the lawyer must give him that file because it is the client's property.
Doctors are required by law to keep files on patients. Those files must be kept for a certain number of years after they have ceased seeing the patients. Those files deal with particular persons and are important. They contain personal private
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier).]
matters about patients. Frequently those files are passed on from one doctor's practice to another. Notification goes out to the patients so that they always know where their files are.
The same happens in an accountant's office. An accountant cannot throw a client's file away because he is finished with him. Perhaps there will be a requirement for that file some years in the future. Other professions such as optometrists and dentists have patients' files on trust. Those files belong to the patients and are held in trust.
I am suggesting that members of parliament, in dealing with their constituents, should put material, letters written to them and their replies in files opened in the names of constituents. I believe those files are held in trust by the member who holds the office of a particular constituency. I point this out because I consider it to be important.
This was the first private members' bill which I introduced after I was elected in 1972. Unfortunately this is the first time it has been debated.
I should like to refer to an incident involving my predecessor, who shall remain nameless. I am sure this has happened in almost every other constituency. My predecessor was doing active work on a number of files. I was elected to office on October 30, and on November 7, 1972 I wrote a letter congratulating my predecessor and his wife for a vigorous, clean and hard-fought campaign. The letter read as follows:
I would especially like to congratulate you for the earnest work you have put in in the last four and one-half years as the member of parliament for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton.
Knowing your feeling that the constituents of Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton must be fully and actively served, I would enquire whether or not there are any matters involving them which you commenced during your term which I should now follow up in order that continuity be maintained and the electorate served and their problems dealt with. If you find that there are certain files or actions which you feel would be best handled by an uninterrupted service to the constituency, then I would be only too happy to get together with you at your convenience for a full discussion and to hear your suggestions.
I did not receive a written reply, but I happened to meet that member a few days later in the west block cafeteria. It was during lunch hour and he was sitting with a constituent from Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton. He told me that all his files were personal to him and that I would receive none.
Perhaps that does not seem to be an important issue, but in the following three months a number of constituents wrote to me and telephoned me indicating they had occasion to communicate with my predecessor. Apparently they had sent certain original documents. They asked me to follow up on these matters. I was put in the position of having to say, "I do not have any files; I do not have any such documents. Would you replace them and start again with me?" In some cases the documents were originals and could not be replaced. Those constituents never received what they deserved. Later I found out that those documents were not just thrown in the garbage; they were put through a shredding machine in the centre block. Those original documents belonged to the constituents. They were sent to the member representing them. They were not his. They were in his custody only because he held the office of member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton.
May 26, 1978

Members of parliament hold files on behalf of constituents, whether they are individuals or corporations. They are held in trust and should be turned over to our successors. Members of parliament have various files. They have files which deal with taxation matters for private individuals, health, the Canada Pension Plan, the guaranteed income supplement, unemployment insurance and immigration. To some people this is very personal information. Because of our offices, these people come to us for assistance. Members build up files on corporations and industries in their constituencies. Perhaps these files deal with tax problems, grants or with any number of things from tariffs to inquiring about getting landed immigrant status for a certain person who is an expert required by them. These files cannot be kicking around and opened up to the rest of the world because they contain personal information. They are particular to an industry, corporation or company. It is their right to deal with their respective members of parliament in a sense of confidentiality and trust. One should not bandy about this particular information. It is important for a member to retain the right to the information contained in files on a basis of trust only. The contents belong to the respective constituents, be they individuals or corporations.
In the cases where my predecessor destroyed files resulting in the loss of original documents, individual constituents were left without a remedy. They were left in awkward and difficult positions. In the case of some of the corporations in my constituency which wanted me to pursue matters that had been dealt with by my predecessor, I was required to write to them indicating that I had no files in my possession. They wanted me to continue pursuing matters on their behalf. I wrote to them indicating that I had no such files. They replied by saying that they had sent down an inch of material to my predecessor. They asked where this material was. I had to apologize and say that I had not received it. I asked them to send me photocopies of their files. At their expense, they provided me with complete photocopied files, including my predecessor's letters to them. I ended up being in possession of the files respecting corporations in photocopied form. That situation is unsatisfactory. I feel we must hold these files in trust.
That is the purpose of this bill. It provides in the preamble that:
-it is desirous to provide for continuity in the management of constituency affairs by members of the House of Commons and to ensure the preservation and maintenance of all constituency records that are relevant to and necessary for the better servicing of constituency needs, and generally to promote and to improve public confidence in their day-to-day dealings with elected representatives.
The bill contains a definition dealing with constituency records. It suggests what these records are that have to be passed on. I do not think this would appropriately include every file I have in my office. The bill states that:
"constituency record" means any record, file, correspondence or other document concerning constituency matters but does not include any such material that pertains to matters of a purely personal or political nature.
Constituency Records
Naturally I have some files in a drawer labelled "personal" which have to do with Paul Dick and are not necessarily of a political or constituency nature. They may contain my life insurance policies, dealings with my bank or what-have-you. I happen to have these files in a drawer. Some people may have a filing system at home which they use for this purpose. Those personal files should not be turned over to a successor, and that is why I included that explanation.
Every member in this House probably has a number of files that deal with their constituency, but deal with it in a political way in the sense of who the member has as organizers in each municipality, ward or area. The files may contain mailing lists, voting trends in the constituency in federal and provincial elections. Those are files of a poltical nature and do not deal with individual or corporate constituents. Those are files that most members have for political reasons. I call those files political in nature, but I do not feel they should be passed on. Naturally a successor can dig out those facts if he wants, or he may be using a different method for compiling such files of a political nature. However, other files that deal with constituency matters, particularly in respect of individuals or corporations, should be turned over to a successor. This would include any record, file, correspondence or document that would constitute a constituency record.
One might wonder just who is to be considered a successor. A successor may come into being if a member retires from office and a by-election is called in that electoral district. The person elected would receive that material. A member may die in office or be defeated during an election. This measure provides for a time within which those constituency documents as they relate to people, corporations, unions or whatever in the constituency, may be turned over to the successor.
Of course, there is the matter of redistribution. I suppose the constituency of York Scorborough is a classic example. This is a constituency that is to become part of five constituencies after redistribution. The most recent member for York Scarborough who has had those files would have an obligation to pass them out to the new members. He could look at the street addresses to determine where the people live and turn those documents over to the new members for those areas.
I am not suggesting this is a simple matter, but I suggest it might be a way of ensuring continuity. If an individual wants to indicate that he has moved from Toronto to Vancouver, for example, he could request that the member send his file to the member representing that area in Vancouver. I also suggest in clause 4 that no person should be allowed to shred a person's file. These files are of an important nature and deal with the government and individuals' elected representatives. I was disgusted, quite frankly, when I discovered that my predecessor had shredded files of his constituents, and that some of those files contained original documents. The least he might have done was to send them back to the constituents.
This bill provides for arbitration in the case of any dispute. Mr. Speaker would appoint an individual, perhaps the whip of a party, or more than one if there were two parties involved. I do not have to elaborate on that. Someone may argue that the

May 26, 1978
Constituency Records
file is a constituency file while another may suggest it is a personal file. The matter could be settled finally in this way through arbitration.
The bill also provides a penalty, which is not light. In fact, it is greater than many penalties for summary conviction offences. The penalty is a fine of not more than $1,000 and not less than $500. I feel strongly that these files are held by us in trust for our constituents and there is no way a person should get away with a slap of the wrist or a suspended sentence. I think they should be fined, and this is something that we as members of parliament should recognize.
At page 3, clause 7 states that, in spite of this act, all other rights of an individual would be preserved, specifically the right to civil recourse against a member of parliament if he should destroy a constituent's file by shredding it or throwing it in the garbage. That member would have the right to sue for recovery or for compensation.
I realize I only have about a minute and a half left so I will try to wrap up this introduction very quickly. Perhaps this bill is not the best way of dealing with this matter. I would be glad to have the subject matter referred to a committee. Perhaps we might relate the bill only to files that have not been dealt with for two years or more. We could adopt the rule of sending such files back to constituents so they could deal with them. We could then state that the file is returned, it is in the constituent's hands and the constituent can do whatever he wishes with it. This would provide the member with a document showing that on such and such a date the file had been returned.
There may be other ways of dealing with this situation, but I would hope this matter could at least be sent to the committee as a general topic for discussion and consideration. This matter is of importance, just as the matter of conflict of interest is of importance. Let me emphasize that we hold these files in trust because of our position and we are not entitled to throw them away or destroy them. A constituent has a right to the file because the file deals with him, her or it, if a corporation is involved. I hope hon. members will give the bill consideration, and I will listen to their comments with interest.


Mr. D. M. Collenette (York East):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to speak at length this afternoon. The hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) often comes to this Chamber with a good idea, and he should be commended for at least attempting to come to grips with what obviously could be a problem. I do not think his bill is the appropriate way of dealing with the subject. Perhaps it would be better if the subject matter was sent to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, or included in the deliberations in respect of the bill on the independence of parliament, which I understand will be going to the committee shortly. I say that in view of the undertakings by the President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) recently as a result of allegations made by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens).

As chairman of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, I do not think it behooves me to move the subject matter of this bill to the committee because I believe in a certain amount of independence in that position. Certainly I would not object to another member moving the subject matter of the bill to committee.
There is an element of sadness really in discussing this topic, because if you go back to the British parliamentary tradition, going back 500 years, there has been a concept of what we would call the "honourable" member, the "honourable" gentleman or the "honourable" lady. To use a British expression, "it is good form"; it is good manners and good courtesy to pass on documents or files from one member to another when one is defeated.
In my particular case the former hon. member for York East, who was only here for 18 months, and whom I am sure the hon. member for Renfrew-Lanark-Carleton knows very well, was quite helpful in passing files on to me, especially in immigration cases, because we have a heavy immigration load in my constituency. Indeed, Mr. Arrol actually wrote letters to constituents after he was defeated on the basis that he was the member for the 29th parliament, and I believe he paid for postage out of his own pocket. I certainly did not object to that as a member of the 30th parliament because he was merely trying to clean up loose ends. I felt, having campaigned with this particular gentleman, that he was honourable enough that he would pass this information to me.
I know the opponent which the hon. member for Lanark-Renfew-Carleton defeated in 1972, and I am quite surprised that this gentleman, whose name shall go unmentioned at the moment, acted in this way. I do not dispute the word of the hon. member opposite, but I am very much surprised by his allegation.
If we pass this bill or if this bill is allowed to go forward, what we are really doing is admitting that members in this place are somewhat less than honourable. Perhaps I am naive, perhaps I am clinging to ideals of another generation or age, but I do not think there is anything wrong with idealism. I would rather leave it to the discretion of the defeated member and accept his or her judgment as to what should be passed on.
The hon. member mentioned the case of York-Scarborough. My former colleague, Mr. Robert Stanbury, retired from this House last year, and he made provision with the members who share his constituency now-one of them, the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell), who is in the chamber, the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin) and myself-to share the load of his constituency work, which we have done. In my particular case in York East, some files and letters have been sent my way. I understand that that portion of his constituency which has no member at the moment is being looked after by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson). So provisions have been made. Of course, it makes it much easier in that particular case because we are all of the same party.
May 26, 1978

If a member retires and his constituency is swallowed up by other constituencies not represented by the same party, I would think that those members would be willing to share their case load and their experience. Perhaps the independence of parliament act is where we should deal with the absolute question of destruction of official documents.
The member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton, I assume, is indicating that birth certificates, affidavits or that type of thing were shredded in the environs of this parliament. If this is true I do not think anyone could support that kind of action. Documents are sent to us by our constituents on a confidential basis and they expect them to be returned. Indeed, I would expect such action when a file is dead. It would be good form to contact certain constituents who have sent very sensitive documents to you to make sure that even the copies of these documents are returned to their originators upon defeat of the member.
Again, we should not go the route of this bill to achieve this end. This debate this afternoon serves its purpose in drawing to the attention of hon. members in this chamber the very problem the bill proposes to rectify. It is on the record. There will be hon. members in this chamber who will be defeated in the next election, I am sure. It happens. There will be those who resign. I see that the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) has a funny look on his face. I do not know whether he is contemplating defeat or not, but with the rise of Liberal fortunes in western Canada that cannot be counted out.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Not at all.


David Michael Collenette: I would like to deal with the element of confidentiality a bit more. The hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton talked in terms of a member of parliament on the same footing as other professionals-accountants, lawyers and doctors. Maybe it is arrogance on my part or maybe it is naivety, but I believe that members of parliament occupy a special presence within our society, one that is not more privileged but is special in its service to the country.
I would not accept the element of professionalism in the same context as the hon. member, so I would not want him to give people the wrong impression, that just because a certain thing is expected of professionals then it should necessarily follow from us. There must be an element of discretion that is permitted members of parliament by virtue of our office and position in society. Again, my point of view can only be accepted if society at large accepts the point of view that hon. members are indeed responsible, and that they are honourable despite the fact there may be cases where honourable conduct has not been forthcoming.
One other element I would like to talk about, should Bill C-244 go through as we have it not, is the policing aspect. As a member of parliament-again, perhaps it is arrogance, naivety or my own peculiarities-I believe that I have to answer to only one constituency in this country and that constituency is the one that elected me. I do not believe that I should policed
Constituency Records
or that my files should be policed, even after my defeat or even by my colleagues, no matter how much I respect them.
Indeed, for a party such as the Conservatives, who are continuously talking about the evils of security, policing and government bureaucracy, I would think this is the last thing that they would want. Given what I have said about the attitude towards members of parliament for the concept of a member of parliament in the British tradition, I am surprised that this kind of bill does come from the Conservative party, a party which is known for being one that has always tried to preserve the British parliamentary system to the hilt, at least according to the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), who gives one the impression that the Conservative party is the only party that has any respect for this place. This, of course, is not true, but even if you accept one iota of that argument, then bringing this bill here this afternoon seems inconsistent.
In conclusion, I commend the hon. member for giving us an opportunity to discuss this bill in the House. I would certainly not be opposed-though I would not be prepared to move such a motion myself because of my peculiar position as chairman of the committee-if the subject matter of this bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. I think also the hon. member should talk to his House leader and his other colleagues who will be dealing with the independence of parliament act, and perhaps the government could make some accommodation for some of the provisions in this bill, or at least include some statements on expected behaviour when members are defeated without actually stipulating that all documents, irrespective of their content, must be handed over to one's successor.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to make a few comments on this bill. 1 think that Bill C-244, which would require members of parliament to pass on to their successors any files they possess dealing with matters relating to their constituency poses a very sensitive question. This afternoon, I heard a member make a comparison with professionals such as notaries and lawyers who are bound by law to keep important documents, and to preserve the secrecy of their correspondence. I would not put a member of parliament in the same category as a professional, first of all simply because there is no association, as in the case of the professional, which forces him to act in such a way, there is no code of ethics which requires him to ensure secrecy and preserve all documents. Also, I think the role of the member of parliament is a temporary one. I would rather compare his role with that of a mayor, a chairman of a school board or a chairman of some agency. It is so temporary as a matter of fact that I am surprised to hear that some members keep the original birth certificates, and extremely important contracts in their files here in parliament.

May 26, 1978
Constituency Records
That is not the way I do things. When I discuss a particular case and must use the originals, I make a photostat copy of them and immediately return the original to its owner, because one never knows just how many years or months a member will stay in parliament. The point is that this is a temporary period, and I underline temporary, because one cannot risk having important documents destroyed, as the hon. member indicated a moment ago. That is unfortunate but I think that if the hon. member had understood his role he would not have kept these important papers in his offices.
I have been keeping files for 16 years, but I have only photostats. If the client wants his original copies, he has them himself or his legal counsel. I only have photostats. I feel this is the safest way for a member in this House to deal fairly with his clients, considering conditions here in parliament. For certain exchanges of correspondence that are strictly of a private nature, and even political correspondence, I strongly object to a member being obliged to submit to regulations under the penalty of being fined, as proposed in the bill. This is going too far, this is asking too much from a member that may be elected for six months or a year only. That is asking too much because once again the best way is not to keep originals but to return them, with the constant feeling that we are here on a short-term basis only. Those who are here on a long-term basis have a chance of a lifetime, because we are always asking ourselves whether we will be re-elected at the next election that comes every three years or so. Therefore there is an absolute necessity to protect the confidentiality of correspondence. Those who write to us, members from the Social Credit Party of Canada, would not write to a Liberal member. They will often not tell me secrets they will disclose to one of their friends who is a Liberal member, but other people will tell me secrets they would not disclose to someone else.
So this is a very difficult matter, this is a very sensitive subject because our correspondence is to some degree privileged. When people come to see us, they trust us. They do not trust someone else who may beat us at the next election, but they trust us not to betray their confidence, not to kneel before someone else they never liked and they never trusted. I feel that immediate steps should be taken to avoid their having to do something they would not like to do. This is the suggestion I wanted to make. So let each member, instead of keeping originals, simply keep photostats and return to the originator as soon as possible the originals of any correspondence and important documents.


Mr. Rod Blaker (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: When public archives no longer permitted MPs to dead file their files in that fashion, I began to wonder if it would be possible to have microfilming done, but that process did not seem to be available. As a result I began to store things in various nooks and corners of the office but this is not a very satisfactory arrangement. However, one day I was in the parliamentary restaurant, curious as to what lay behind the various wall of this building. I am sorry that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is not here as is usual on Friday afternoon because I am going to tell one of his better guarded secrets.
If hon. members who are familiar with the restaurant upstairs want to probe around, they will probably find in the order of ten to twelve rather old filing cabinets, each containing upwards of 1,000 files, all belonging to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who has spent 30 years in this House. I have never told him that I found out where he stores his dead files, so I expect next Friday afternoon when he is reading Hansard he will come across the floor and give me the devil for talking about it. But he has never found the solution to the storage problem either. What he has done is that he has relied on his friendships, contacts and his well deserved reputation in the House and has the roof of the House of Commons under the rafters jammed to the doorways with his original files collected over the years-


An hon. Member:: Twenty-nine filing cabinets.


Roderick Blaker: Is it 29? I did not do an actual count. I suggested there were several thousand of them. It is incredible. While we have all come to believe that the man is eternal, it is probable according to the statistics that one day he will no longer be in a position to deal with these files and, of course, we have no rules here as to what to do with them.


Steve Eugene Paproski: And he won't give them up.


Roderick Blaker: The hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) says he will not give them up. How true that is. He does not give them up in his office either.
That is one of the problems the hon. member responsible for this bill I thought might try to solve. Perhaps one day we will get microfilm legislation which will handle this difficulty. However, I believe Bill C-244 does not go the root of the problem.
There is another difficulty concerning this matter. The hon. member has argued that the contents of these files are not only subject to the law of trust but they are also held in either the solicitor-client relationship or in something so similar to it that the general principles of the solicitor-client relationship should obtain. I agree with him. Having said that, nothing in this bill seems to offer the assurance to the citizen, or non-citizen for that matter, under his definition of a constituency record, that that information shall remain confidential unless and until he has given his consent to the handling of the documentation. While I understand the interest in the subject matter of documents, it seems to me that we are not only concerned with that; we are also concerned with the exchange of information,
Constituency Records
the exchange of opinion, the exchange of data, expressions by either a member of parliament or expressions by the individual citizen.
The vast majority of citizens would be more than a little disturbed to find that a committee of two or three members of parliament or whips, or whoever it might be, had suddenly acquired the power and the authorization to dispose of the correspondence of those citizens without the expressed consent of those citizens beforehand. This raises another problem. Generally in law practice there is some financial interest, together with a professional interest, in seeing to it that out of date files, or current but not active files, are moved along either to other members in the partnership, when one partner dies, or they are moved along to other law firms in the event it is a sole practitioner who has been unable to keep up his practice for whatever reason or has died. There is no direction as to how to handle the incredible pile of documentation and correspondence that we as members of parliament seem to acquire.
There is not much interest on the part of any other member, regardless of his party affiliation, to take over files from one of his colleagues.
I suppose if there were any interest it would probably be on the part of another party's member who might have gained the seat and who would be curious to know how his predecessor had handled correspondence, et cetera, in the riding. But we do not have an essential, important and rational motivation as to how to deal with these things.
The hon. member's bill comes at an opportune time. Summertime is when a lot of us start carrying out files. I hesitate to destroy any of these files, not only because of the documentation itself but because citizens who write to me are entitled to feel that the opinions they express are not simply thrown into a garbage pail. On the other hand, after five and one-half years in parliament I am beginning to wonder if the building will withstand the weight of all the files which I am collecting. Sometimes we think about attempting to contact citizens in an effort to gain their consent to destroy files. However, mobility is such a factor in Canadian life that it would take months to find all the people who originally wrote to me. Some of them are dead, and I would have to look into the question of whether there are any rights in their estate to take any action. Sometimes I find constituents have moved to other parts of Canada to addresses unknown. I cannot cope-


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I agree with my hon. friend who presently has the floor on a number of points which he has brought up. It is sort of like a devil's advocate bill in that I want to have an airing of the topic. I would be pleased to have someone move the motion to discharge the bill but to send the subject matter to committee, where it could perhaps be dealt with in more detail-


An hon. Member:: It is not important enough to do.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.

May 26, 1978
Constituency Records


Paul Wyatt Dick: I would like to ask the question whether he would be so kind as to do that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I think the hon. member had mentioned that during his former speech.


Roderick Blaker: Mr. Speaker, very often there is a courtesy in the House that members will attempt to get the subject matter of the bill off to committee. I want to finish by explaining to the hon. member why he is wrong. If I believe he is wrong, it would be most improper of me to propose that the subject matter go to committee.
At one point the hon. member mentioned that he was discouraged because there was no remedy open to the citizen. I have tried to point out that we do not have any rational way of handling this information. I went through that entire story to make it very clear to the hon. member that his bill would require the handling of documentation in a manner of which most of us are incapable. As the years go by we are simply not capable of storing this kind of data. Barring access to space under the roof of this building-where at least one hon. member is storing his dossiers-there is no way in which we can do what the hon. member wants us to do. We simply do not have the ability to store and care for these documents under a law which would, in effect, impose a solicitor-client relationship upon a member of parliament and his constituents, or anyone else who may write to him.
Having said this, I want to point out what I feel is wrong in law with the proposal, and it is this. A remedy is already available to the citizen who claims his documentation has not been returned to him. Those documents, under the law of my province-and I assume this would apply to a citizen of the other provinces-are private property. Under the law he has a right to reacquire his file and the court will uphold that right.
The hon. member has included in his bill a provision that, in the event of the wilful or deliberate destruction or mutilation of the documentation, a fine may be imposed. Well, Mr. Speaker, the Criminal Code already handles that matter. The wilful destruction of property of other people constitutes an offence. That is why I do not want to see this kind of bill go before a committee. The law already provides a remedy for citizens who feel aggrieved in this regard.
I end by saying that I had hoped the hon. member would help us resolve some of the problems we have in this regard. I do not think he has done so. In the area with which he is dealing, there is already good common law and good civil law to make sure that the rights of citizens are well protected. I regret the circumstances in which this bill should not, in my view, be sent to a committee. As a matter of fact, it will not be me who will prevent it from going further through the usual method of talking it out. I realize the hon. member wants the whole subject to be considered in committee, but I believe we need a far better understanding of how this problem should be dealt with before we proceed further into the narrow issue of the handling of documents.


Hon. Martin O'Connell (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that the author of this bill is well intentioned
but his proposals are, in my humble opinion, misguided and in part contradictory. I think he has placed before us a bill which is unworkable. We all recognize the attempt the hon. member has made to be reasonable in not seeking to sweep all correspondence or documents within the ambit of the measure, but the means he has provided for determining what is within its scope and what is not are ineffective. Moreover, I find some of them objectionable.
The hon. member himself suggested that this might not be the best bill for tackling the problem he outlined. I think he is right. He suggested it might be preferable to return important documentation to whomever had sent it to us. That is indeed a preferable procedure in the case of original documents. In my own case, as far as I can recall I do not accept original documents without asking the person concerned if he wants them back. If so, I photocopy and send the originals back.
My question is: Should we be legislating in this field? Should we not, rather, be developing more professional standards of conduct which would ensure the protection of original documents? I say this bearing in mind the vulnerability of members of parliament in their occupation. Ought not members simply to exercise good judgment in passing on a file?
I agree with the hon. member for Lachine-Lakeshore (Mr. Blaker) that documents should be passed on only with the consent of the authors. This is why I say that the bill is in part contradictory in its principles. I think we would all agree that correspondence between a constituent and a member of parliament involves aspects of trust. But is it not a contradiction to say that in other circumstances, or at some other time, because these documents constitute what are sometimes called constituency records, some generalized conception of the constituency, this trust can be interpreted as requiring that, in effect, it be broken and that the documents or correspondence be turned over to someone else? There is no requirement for consent. In fact, consent would be so difficult to obtain in the circumstances which arise when an MP is defeated or resigns that I think any proposal along these lines would be unworkable.
In closing, I will mention another aspect. Let us consider the means proposed by the hon. member for implementing the bill. He suggests the setting up of an arbitration committee composed of three persons. How would such a committee be established? It would be established by whips. Do we conceive of whips, who are members of parliament, as being non-partisan, judicious persons-members who are whips in this House at the present moment excepted, of course! Can the public be assured that the element of a judicious approach would be represented in such a body nominated by partisans and in proceedings which would lead to fines? Is parliament to get into the business of imposing fines on persons who do not comply?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being five o'clock, the hour for the consideration of private members' business has expired. I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m. on 'Monday, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At five o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.



END OF VOLUME V