1981-02-04

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing importance under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas members from all parties in this House participated in a benefit hockey game for the Heart Foundation last night, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand):
That the House of Commons of Canada congratulate the members in this House who participated in upholding the good name of this institution through their participation and express its wholehearted support for Heart Month in Canada.


Madam Speaker:: I am sure the House will want to applaud this fantastic feat accomplished by our hockey players last evening. They played a wonderful game.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) has described the government's decision to withdraw the provisions of the constitutional package concerning suspension of the Senate's veto power as "the most cynical sell-out" in the government's attempt to win support for its constitutional package. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway):
That on the basis of the proposition that it takes one to know one, this House recognizes the cynical sell-out of the NDP in its support for the government's constitutional package, thereby selling out Canadian sovereignty in domestic affairs to British control over our destiny which the leader of the NDP describes as "a civilized package".


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, I would like to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas fishermen on the coast of British Columbia are waiting two and a half to three months before notice of qualification for unemployment insurance is being granted and are experiencing a further delay before receiving income, whereas the Department of Employment and Immigration seriously underestimated the claims this year by in excess of 100 per cent, consequently understaffed their offices and are unable to handle these claims, and whereas people are now being evicted and are unable to earn sufficient income, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis):
That the Minister of Employment and Immigration move immediately to relieve this disastrous situation by allowing sufficient staff to handle the claims that are before these overburdened offices to be processed quickly.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. David Smith (Don Valley East):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that A. Roy Megarry, publisher of The Globe and Mail, finally exposed his bias against the constitutional resolution and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) while lobbying on behalf of the provinces in London yesterday, in a speech probably ghost-written by Brian Peckford or Sterling Lyon, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson):

February 4, 1981
That this House urge all reporters and other employees of The Globe and Mail to follow the paper's motto in the face of intimidation, that is, the "subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures imposed by his or her publisher".


Madam Speaker:: Although I have some doubts about the validity of this motion, 1 will put it to the House. Is there unanimous consent for the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HEALTH CARE
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the decreasing amount that the Saskatchewan NDP government is spending on medical and hospital care to the level where the province now ranks eighth in terms of per capita expenditure on health care, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin):
That this House instruct the Minister of National Health and Welfare to launch an immediate investigation into the seriously eroding level of expenditures by the NDP government on health care in Saskatchewan, and that her investigation determine whether an appropriate portion of federal funding is being directed to health care in that province.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that confusion still exists in respect of the government's herd maintenance program, and in view of the fact that government members turned down a motion under Standing Order 43 last week requesting a change in the criteria which would take into consideration the yields of hay and forage crops, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight):
That the Minister of Agriculture consider a change in the criteria to provide for payment of a fixed sum per animal.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of the Supreme Court decision this week to reinstate English-speaking Donald Kelso as an employee at air traffic control in Montreal, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie):
That this House instruct the government to bring forth the necessary legislation so that paragraph 7 of the resolution of June, 1973, will be made law as part of the Official Languages Act, and that paragraph 7 of the resolution be expanded to include Crown corporations, so that unilingual public servants will not feel stifled in their jobs or denied promotion because they are not bilingual.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


BANKRUPTCIES
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under Standing Order 43 on a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. Due to the fact that business bankruptcies are increasing and that hardship is being experienced by wage and/or commission earners who are directly affected by such bankruptcies and insolvency proceedings, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger):
That this House request the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to revise immediately the statutes respecting bankruptcy and insolvency in order to guarantee that the class of creditors with claims for wages, salaries, commissions and compensation for direct services are given top or first priority over the payments to all other claimants; and further that this House expedite such statute changes.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
February 4, 1981


MEDICAL CARE ACT
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the government of Alberta has declared war on medicare in so far as extra billing by physicians is concerned, a practice that does violence to the Medical Care Act which is not only being tolerated by the Alberta government but is now being legitimized by institutionalizing it in the form of a panel which will ostensibly assess any complaints by patients and levy a tax on offending doctors; and whereas Premier Lougheed is reported to have stated that Alberta would resist a federal ban on extra billing to the point of doing without federal transfer payments,
1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle):
That the salary of the Minister of National Health and Welfare be reduced to the federal minimum wage until such time as she introduces legislation in this House that would amend the Medical Care Act to prohibit extra billing and show Premier Lougheed and other medicare-bashers that the Government of Canada will not be intimidated or sucked into using medicare as another jurisdictional football in the ongoing federal-provincial games.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. John Kushner (Calgary East):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the CBC proposes to expand its operation in the form of CBC-2 and Tele-2 and Canadian taxpayers are already subsidizing the CBC to the tune of $500 million per year, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski):
That this House rejects the CBC proposal for CBC-2 and Tele-2 until it shows it can at least be self-supporting as a result of providing programs that Canadians want and not what the CBC thinks we should be watching.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Can the Minister of Justice tell the House whether on or before November 10, 1980, the Secretary of State for External Affairs was told by Westminster that Westminster could not pass Canadian constitutional proposals if those proposals were being challenged in the Supreme Court of Canada?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, 1 think the position of the British government was enunciated very clearly by the Prime Minister of England, Mrs. Thatcher, yesterday, that when it receives a resolution of the House of Commons and Senate of Canada it will act promptly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I suppose it is not surprising that the prime minister of another country would be misquoted in this House, since we cannot get straight answers as to government policy in Canada from the Canadian government.
The Minister of Justice neglected to answer my question, which was quite explicit. Did the Secretary of State for External Affairs receive on or before November 10, 1980, an indication that Westminster could not pass Canada's constitutional proposal if it was under challenge in the Supreme Court of Canada?
[Translation)


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, the position of the government on that issue is clear. The Parliament of Canada is called upon to vote on a resolution aimed at patriating the Canadian Constitution. As soon as Parliament has completed its work, the result of many deliberations over several months in Canada, we will forward the request of the House of Commons and the Senate and, in keeping with precedents, traditions and obligations, the government of England has agreed to deal expeditiously with the request of the government and the Parliament of Canada.
\ English]


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I can only assume that when a minister of the Crown refuses explicitly to answer a very simple and direct question, it is because he has something to hide.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

February 4, 1981
Ora! Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Let me ask the Minister of Justice something else. He will recall that on several occasions the government leader here, the Prime Minister of Canada, has said that he had what amounts to a commitment by the British government that it would use all of its powers to force its party, its majority in its parliament, to support the passage of any Canadian proposal. That is called a three-line whip. He said that most recently on January 29 in this House when he said: "She will put on a three-line whip to pass it through the House of Commons".
I wonder if the Minister of Justice will tell the House of Commons explicitly at what date that undertaking was given to the Government of Canada and by whom it was given.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister said yesterday that the conversations between him and Mrs. Thatcher or her ministers are not to be debated here; if the British government has something to say, it can say it. Yesterday Mrs. Thatcher made very clear the position of the British government, which is that when it receives the resolution of this House and the Senate, it will act promptly, according to precedent and the law.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, this Canadian House of Commons has been given a solemn assurance by our Prime Minister as to a question of fact. I am trying to determine the basis of that solemn declaration and, consequently, to determine whether or not it is a fact. The simple way to clear it up is for the Minister of Justice to tell us when that commitment was given and by whom. It is a simple question. He can answer it directly. Again, if he evades it, it must be because he has something to hide.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I did not attend the meeting between Mrs. Thatcher and the Prime Minister of Canada. The Prime Minister of Canada made a very clear statement on that subject here and if the hon. Leader of the Opposition wants an immediate answer the best way is to adopt the resolution in the next few days and we will soon see what the Parliament of England will do.


DISCUSSIONS WITH PREMIER OF SASKATCHEWAN
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, I too would like to direct my question to the Minister of Justice. Last week the attorney general of Saskatchewan spent the whole week in Ottawa closeted with officials of the minister's department, and possibly the minister himself, discussing the constitutional package. Subsequently an official or officials of the minister's department and the attorney general went to Hawaii to discuss the matter further with the Premier of Saskatchewan. 1 should like to know if the minister is in a position to report on the nature of those discussions. Precisely what was put on the table? What was suggested by the federal government in order to obtain Saskatchewan's support for the constitutional package?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, during the fall and since we came back after Christmas, I have had occasion to talk with many ministers of different governments about what we were doing, giving them explanations, discussing propositions and so on. We have done that with different governments and with the government of Saskatchewan. The hon. member knows our resolution and they know what it is, so it is up to them to make up their minds. They made some suggestions; some of those have been accepted and some rejected. The policy of the government is well known and it is being debated at this time in committee. We have almost finished the work in the committee. They know very well what kind of resolution the House of Commons and Senate will approve soon.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, if 1 may be permitted to say so, that was a "Waikiki response"! Or, en franqais, "une whacky reponse"! It is all right for the minister to flim-flam around but I asked a specific question. I should like to know whether a specific proposal was put to the Premier of the province of Saskatchewan to obtain his support for the constitutional package and whether an official from the department went to Hawaii to convey that to the attorney general of Saskatchewan. When does the minister expect a response? Is there any time limit? Has he received a response in the negative from the Premier of Saskatchewan, or what is the exact situation, without the equivocation we have heard to date?


Mr. Epp:: Tell us about the Honolulu formula.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, since the hon. member wants me to answer him in French 1 would say that indeed we had discussions with the Saskatchewan government just as we did with other governments. They wanted clarifications, whether any changes were contemplated and we discussed that. The government has made its decisions and the study of nearly all clauses has now been completed. At his press conference about two weeks ago Premier Blakeney stated he would make up his mind once the House of Commons is through with its work. We have already taken our decision and the committee was advised each time we undertook the study of a clause or when we tabled amendments before it. The colleague of the hon. member knows full well the nature of the amendments proposed by the Canadian government.


ASTRA TRUST
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, my question is for the
February 4, 1981

Minister of State for Finance. Will he agree to refer the circumstances surrounding the chartering, operation and bankruptcy of Astra Trust and related companies to a parliamentary committee in light of the fact that a federal charter was turned down in 1972, that a provincial charter was turned down in 1973 because the principals were found to be unfit, and in light of the fact that on Monday a select committee of the Ontario legislature found that it was influence exercised on the part of certain politicians in the Liberal Party at the federal level which resulted in the charter being granted to Astra Trust in 1977?
[ Translation]


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, essentially, the question which must be answered is whether there was something irregular in the recommendation made by the Superintendent of Insurance to authorize the chartering of Astra Trust. The Superintendent of Insurance has assured me several times that the investigation carried out before the recommendation was made was quite thorough and that no external pressures, whether political or of another type, affected his recommendation to the then Minister of Finance that a charter be granted to Astra Trust. In view of these facts Madam Speaker, I do not believe that an investigation on the circumstances surrounding the chartering of this company is required.


Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, that evidence of the Superintendent of Insurance which the minister has just put before the House has been directly contradicted by evidence given under oath before the select committee at Queen's Park. There are dozens of references to interventions by Senator Stanbury, the then President of the Liberal Party of Canada. There are references to representations made by members of the House of Commons who are today ministers of the Crown, and the minister knows this. In light of this evidence-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Bob Rae: -how could he possibly justify not having a full public inquiry, when we know contradictory evidence has been given under oath at Queen's Park?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I am afraid the hon. member fails to distinguish between two levels of decisionmaking. One is that of the office of the Superintendent of Insurance, which is responsible for looking fully into the application and recommending to the Minister of Finance whether or not a charter should be granted, and the other is that of the minister's office. I doubt that it is a crime or a matter of exercising undue influence for any hon. member in this House to get in touch with the office of the minister and
Oral Questions
say: Listen, where are you at with this file? Or, 1 should like to know whether or not an in-depth study is being made of this file. I do not feel that it could be seen as exercising undue influence or as elements that would disrupt the work of an official like the Superintendent of Insurance. If that is the type of intervention the hon. member calls undue influence, then I have a feeling a large number of hon. members in this House will find that the volume of their correspondence will go down drastically overnight.


Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, my final supplementary question is directed to the minister for whom I have the highest respect; he knows this because we have worked together. I suggest to the minister and other hon. members who have worked with him-


Mr. Nielsen:: But we are not in bed with them.


Bob Rae: I do not hesitate in saying that; 1 am referring to matters in this House. 1 say to the minister, in all frankness, that he is being extremely naive in this matter. This matter involves an elaborate scheme to bilk the citizens of Ontario
of-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should ask his question.


Bob Rae: The minister has refused to allow the Superintendent of Insurance to appear before the select committee and, as I understand it, he has refused today to allow an inquiry to be held in Parliament. In light of these facts, how can we come to any other conclusion than that there is a cover-up involved in the activities of members of his party and members of the Conservative party of Ontario, which has consequences for hundreds of citizens in Ontario and their savings?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I must say that I have as much respect for the hon. member as he has for me, but I am somewhat surprised by his strong language which, I am sure, he will regret. The Ontario legislature committee had to deal with a company incorporated under Ontario legislation, and the inquiry focused specifically on the incorporation of that company. Even though the committee blamed the provincially incorporated company called Re-Mor, one should not draw the same conclusions about Astra, which was federally incorporated. The case is clearly different. Re-Mor came into existence after the incorporation of Astra and, as for myself, I am satisfied with the assurances given to me by the departmental officials, namely, that the charter was undoubtedly granted on its own merits and I do not see the need for an inquiry.

February 4, 1981
Oral Questions


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General, Will the minister tell the House whether he is aware of any files or, indeed, whether there is any information in his department which discloses monumental bungling by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police during the October crisis, as suggested by the hon, member for Durham-Northumberland?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, my predecessor in the Clark government knows perfectly well that I cannot ask my deputy, as such, to show me files which were shown to my predecessor without his permission or without the permission of the present Hon. Leader of the Opposition. I am not aware of any such files which show monumental bungling on the part of the Prime Minister, the government or the RCMP. But 1 do know, Madam Speaker, that during the administration of the Clark government documents dealing with the FLQ crisis were sent to the McDonald commission. 1 think we should be entitled to assume here that if members opposite found the type of document to which they have referred, then those materials should have been sent by them at that time to the McDonald commission. They are not subject to the kind of restrictions which members opposite have suggested they are subject to.
is: what was the basis for the valuation of Petrofina in the recent take-over bid by Petro-Canada? It was a valuation which produced $120 a share, or a 75 per cent premium over the $70 price which the shares were trading at prior to the speculation that a bid was forthcoming. This led to a good degree of profiteering on the part of those who were in the marketplace. Was the basis for valuation on assets, cash flow, earnings, reserves, or was there some other basis?


Hon. Mare Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I read Hansard yesterday and 1 failed to see the passage to which the hon. member has referred in the statement of the Minister of Finance. The position of this government is the one expressed by the Minister of Finance, that we should achieve energy security in this country during the present decade, with self-sufficiency by 1990; we should substantially increase Canadian ownership of the industry between now and 1990 and there should be a fair pricing system as far as consumers are concerned.
The purchase of Petrofina by Petro-Canada is part of the Canadianization process, which is in the same vein as the decision by Dome Petroleum last week to set up a 75 per cent Canadian-owned corporation in the private sector to expand Canadian ownership. Canadian ownership is a high priority of this government. It will be achieved overwhelmingly by the private sector, but the public sector will also be part of it.


Some hon. Members:: 
PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF FORMER PRIME MINISTER OF AUSTRALIA
Madam Speaker:: I would like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of the Right Hon. E. Gough Whitlam, the former Prime Minister of Australia.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Wilson:: Madam Speaker, I fail to understand why the minister cannot direct his remarks to the question I asked. What was the basis for the valuation, the 75 per cent premium? Why should consumers and taxpayers pay a 75 per cent premium over the value at which the shares were trading before this speculation took place? The shares were trading in the low $70 range. The market trading was stopped at $87.50. We now have a bid at $120 a share, which is a very large increase in the profits. These profits will be accepted by shareholders and speculators at the expense of consumers and taxpayers. What steps has the minister taken to investigate how these profits were made, who made them and what will his department and Petro-Canada do to avoid this sloppy procedure in the future, if there are to be other take-overs?


PETRO-CANADA ACQUISITION OF PETROFINA-VALUE OF SHARES
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In answer to a question yesterday, the Minister of Finance made it quite clear that the primary objective of the national energy policy was to increase public sector ownership of the oil and gas industry, I might say to the detriment of security of supply in this country. Since again under the National Energy Program the burden of that policy must be borne by taxpayers and consumers in this country, my question


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, it would be much easier to answer a straight question, if it were put that way, than one with a long preamble which completely distorts the statement of the Minister of Finance.
With respect to the question raised by the hon. member, I must remind him that what he is putting forward is the same type of complaint as that put forward by the Conservatives in 1978 when Petro-Canada purchased Pacific Petroleums.


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.
February 4, 1981


Marc Lalonde: I refer to Hansard of November 13, 1978, where the member for Calgary Centre, the member for York-Simcoe, the member for Northumberland-Durham-
Oral Questions


Mr. Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: -is the minister now prepared to consider and, indeed, introduce an energy tax credit for lower and middle-income Canadians?


Some hon. Members:: Order! Madam Speaker: Order!


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Given the fact that the price of gasoline at the pumps during the year 1980 rose approximately 32'A cents per gallon-I am not using the metric smokescreen of litres; the price went up approximately 32'A cents a gallon during the year 1980, which is just an estimate, it may be higher-and given the fact there is the prospect of at least another 12 cents a gallon increase at the pumps, and a similar increase for home heating fuel, as a result of this acquisition of Petrofina by Petro-Canada, can the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs tell me where his concern for the consumer is now? Does the minister have anything to say to the consumer about these increases?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to remind the hon. member that it is fortunate that Canadian consumers do not have to put up with a Conservative government, because oil prices would be much higher than they are now.


REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF ENERGY TAX CREDIT
Geoffrey Douglas Scott: When Canadian consumers see what they must now pay for gasoline as they drive into the service stations and what they must pay for home heating fuel, I think they would much prefer a Conservative government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Deputy Prime Minister or the Minister of State for Finance. Since Canadian consumers are being faced with this tax to aid in financing this acquisition, and since the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has hinted at further deals similar to the one with Petrofina, which apparently was just for openers-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I remind hon. members that this measure, the energy tax credit proposed by the former Minister of Finance, was intended to offset the basic inequity contained in his budget and reflected in energy prices as well as in an 18-cent direct tax payable by consumers. Since the measures that we have proposed are fair and the prices generous towards all Canadians, we do not have to offset this by a tax credit such as the one suggested by the hon. member.


FISHERIES
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I have a straightforward question for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. At a meeting I attended last Thursday in Vancouver, held by the Fraser River fishermen and others, it was made abundantly clear that the minister had not consulted them prior to initiating this drastic proposal concerning the closure of the Fraser River and other restrictions to commercial fishermen. Will the minister assure me and all members in this House from British Columbia that he will consult with the Fraser River gill-net fishermen this week before there is any decision on the part of the government to implement these drastic proposals concerning the Fraser?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, if the member would read the answer which I gave with respect to this matter yesterday, she would see these were, in fact, discussions which took place. There is a process in the British Columbia fishery called "the expectations for the coming year". We discuss with fishermen's groups what appears to be the promise of this or that fishery in this or that river. This is a normal process which has been going on for many years.
With respect to chinook stocks in the Fraser, which are badly depleted, we have been taking conservation measures. We have announced some of these measures. I made it clear yesterday that if there are to be strict measures implemented, then all groups in the fishery must share, and in this I include the sport fishery as well.


Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, my question concerned the desirability of the minister himself, not his officials, meeting with the Fraser River fishermen. It is not good enough that he speak to a chamber of commerce because very few fishermen belong to that organization. Before the minister again, without any notice or warning, imposes further restrictions on what is
6872

February 4, 1981
Oral Questions
the livelihood of these fishermen, will he consult fully with them?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I have never in my life spoken to a chamber of commerce, except in my riding where there were only 13 people present at that meeting!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roméo LeBlanc: The hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria reminds me that 1 spoke at Grand Falls, a town in his riding. In that regard I apologize for misleading the House. The hon. member continues to talk about decisions having been made. 1 referred to discussions which took place as the fishing season approached. The predictions were made by scientists from a biological point of view. We have identified the areas in which there may be closures.


Pauline Jewett: Talk to the fishermen.


Roméo LeBlanc: 1 cannot meet with every group of fishermen on every management decision which must be taken. 1 discussed this particular issue for an hour and a half yesterday morning with the assistant deputy minister from the Pacific coast. We went through the entire scheme, and 1 will do so again when firm recommendations come forward.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, it follows on a previous question with regard to the adverse effect of inflation on the consumer. Specifically with regard to the high cost of rent and the high cost of foodstuffs, would the minister share with the House exactly what approach he and his colleagues, including the Minister of Agriculture and others, will be taking in order to alleviate the high cost of living for citizens in Canada?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, we are obviously concerned with the constant increase in prices, especially food prices. However, a recent study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture showed that of all industrialized countries, Canada is the one where food prices are lowest. It is also important to keep in mind that Canadians are the ones who have to work fewer hours for the weekly food basket. So I think that despite his just concern over price increases, the hon. member must find some kind of comfort in this, because, after all, Canada does fare quite well compared to all other industrialized countries.


PROPOSAL RESPECTING ESTABLISHMENT OF HYDROGEN CENTRE
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, 1 direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It relates to an announcement made last week by Premier William Davis of Ontario with regard to an industrial strategy which included a number of energy and other technical innovations. Within the package was the concept of a Canadian hydrogen centre. Has the minister had an opportunity to assess the proposal to the federal government included in that document which asks for federal government assistance and cooperation to make this hydrogen centre a lead agency to co-operate with the efforts in Quebec to rationalize the situation at Mirabel airport with regard to hydrogen and to help in western Canada with hydrogenation processes?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I have examined this proposal which is consistent with several other proposals put forward on this matter in the past few months. I am supposed to meet my Ontario counterpart within the next few days for a general discussion on energy matters. 1 am sure this question will be on the agenda at that meeting.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. The minister will know of the special efforts being made in the field of energy conservation in Canada through government agencies and other agencies. Organizations such as Canartech, the Biomass Institute and a number of others are carrying on work on alternative energy forms. In view of the fact that the minister's main concerns are now centred around the negotiations or impasse in those negotiations with western Canada with regard to conventional oil supplies, and in view of the importance of alternative energy forms to conservation and to Canada's future, particularly with regard to energy self-sufficiency and warding off rationing, would the minister consider the concept of extending his department to include a minister of state for alternative energy and conservation?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the decision on such a proposal would be made by the Prime Minister, not me. Government organization comes under the responsibility of the Prime Minister.
February 4, 1981


ENERGY CONSERVATION
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, in view of the large number of thermal insulation contractors with minimal or even less expertise-some of them are even crooks-will the minister insist, before paying any grants for thermal insulation under his Canadian Home Insulation Program, that an infrared control be carried out both before and after the work is completed, in order to make sure that the installation is actually energy efficient and that the control costs be included in the total grant?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, 1 take note of the interesting suggestion made by the hon. member, but I must point out to him that infrared tests may be rather costly and increase the cost of the program quite a bit. A system of spot checks and control is being enforced now. Every single unit is not checked, but the system seems to have worked fairly well up to now. I am sure, however, that there is room for improvement. 1 shall certainly look into the hon. member's proposal and report to him later on this matter.


THERMO-METRIC SCANNING PROGRAM
Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, I am told that the cost of thermo-metric control would be around $40.

My supplementary question is for the Minister of Supply and Services or, in his absence, his parliamentary secretary. Is the minister or his parliamentary secretary aware that officials within their department have offered their services and the recently acquired thermo-metric scanners free of charge to a Calgary development company to carry out a scanning program for that company, and that a group of public servants is being sent out, at public expense, to perform all the thermometric work for that company, despite the fact that there are in place in Calgary a number of infrared enterprises with the same type of equipment?


Mr. Norman Kelly (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of the specifics of the particular program, but I will make sure that the hon. member receives an answer as soon as possible.


HOUSING
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and it is with regard to the CHIP program. Fifteen
Oral Questions
months ago a preliminary analysis of the program by CMHC stated that the program was not performing up to its original goals. A study is just now getting under way. When will the minister seriously review this program, because it has great potential, in order that the study may be presented to the Canadian people so that they know they are receiving their money's worth?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the program which has now been in operation for several years had met with certain difficulties but these were solved by the responsible agencies. If my hon. colleague has specific proposals to make with regard to improving it, I should be very happy to examine and implement them if, as he suggests, it is possible to improve the program further at this time. I agree with him that this program is extremely important in achieving our objectives in the field of energy.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Madam Speaker, as the minister has stated, this program does have great potential. However, there are concerns that the money is not being adequately spent and it is felt that there could be improvement. Has the program been switched to the minister's department in order that certain changes can be made? In addition, will the minister look at changes in the application of the program and new types of incentives which may be more attractive to low-income home owners?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, responsibility for the program has been switched to my department. We are reviewing the program with the officials concerned, but at the present time there are no specific plans to make changes to that program, either in terms of the grants themselves or in terms of the basic administration of the program. However, if the hon. member has specific suggestions to make, I will be very happy to receive them.


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance my question is for the Minister of State for Finance. My question is motivated by recent information which was brought forward by the Economic Council of Canada. In evaluating the performance of Canadian banks and their efficiency compared to banks in the U.S., the council found that Canadians had been overcharged by the Canadian banks to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars annually over the last number of years. Is the minister prepared today to assure the members of this House that the performance of our chartered banking system will be thor-

February 4, 1981
Oral Questions
oughly evaluated and monitored over the next ten years, so as to make sure the system becomes more competitive and that the overcharges of hundreds of millions of dollars will be eliminated or dramatically reduced?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, unfortunately I did not have time to look at the report to which the hon. member is referring. However I know that he did have opportunities along with his colleagues to participate in the debate on the banking legislation review and surely he will recall that one of the main objectives of that new statute was to make room for more competition by authorizing foreign banks to open branches in Canada and start banking operations. I believe that the growth and popularity of such institutions as caisses populaires and the arrival of foreign banks will spur competition in our banking system and that will appreciably improve its efficiency.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, perhaps the report of the Economic Council of Canada, which indicated these excessive charges, ought to have been made public and brought to the attention of members of the House during debate on the revisions to the Bank Act. Recognizing that that did not take place, my supplementary question is this. Will the minister indicate whether the government plans to introduce legislation this year which will allow trust companies and credit unions to compete more effectively with the chartered banks, especially in the area of providing loans and services to small businesses?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, in so far as the caisses populaires are concerned, it will be recalled that the banking legislation was reviewed recently and passed by the House and 1 think that under Part 111 the caisses populaires and credit unions were authorized to join the Canadian Payments Association, thereby finding themselves on an equal footing with chartered banks to offer a wider range of services to all their customers and to all Canadians as well. That is what I meant when I said that the caisses populaires would spur competition within the banking system and make it more efficient.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. In view of the importance of the weekly newspapers to Canadians and the concern being expressed by publishers and owners of these papers that their special mailing privileges which they have traditionally enjoyed may be lost when the Post Office becomes a Crown corporation, can the Postmaster General assure the House that these special privileges for these important means of communication will be continued after the Post Office becomes a Crown corporation?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, the answer is yes. The hon. member should know that a few years ago the Secretary of State and the Post Office Department signed an agreement under which we can indeed subsidize the postal rates granted Canadian magazines, newspapers and periodicals. Nothing indicates that the agreement will be cancelled. On the contrary the spirit of the agreement remains the same and I believe it will most certainly endure after the Post Office Department has become a Crown corporation.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Last week in the House, 1 think it was on Friday, despite an earlier decision by Canadian National to close its express terminals in Charlottetown and in Sydney, he announced that the government has now decided to keep those terminals open. Will the minister tell the House how many CN Express employees will be kept in the two centres? Could he also tell the House what level of service will be maintained in those two express terminals which were originally scheduled to be closed and will now be kept open?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I have a letter going to members who represent the area. However, I had to look at it again because there were a few commas in the wrong place.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: The short answer is that it will be local services. The office and the warehouse will be maintained both in Sydney and in Charlottetown. The employment level will be at about half what it is now, that is, 19 people in Charlottetown and 25 in Sydney. That will be guaranteed for a period of two and a half years from now.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Minister of Transport. Does the minister realize there has been a steady withdrawal of CN operations from the Atlantic region, and that the loss of this essential part of the transportation system in that region is causing severe economic hardship? Will the minister assure the House that the decision to keep open the CN Express terminals in Sydney and Charlottetown will not be at the expense of services and jobs in some other part of the operation of Canadian National in the Atlantic region?
February 4, 1981


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, that is exactly what I said. That is a guarantee I have given. The numbers will be about half what they are at this time. Already an erosion had begun to take place because of the elimination of the Rapidex system. However, 1 have used the historical figures of 40 in one case and 50 in another to establish the present level of employment.


CN EXPRESS-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE OF MAINTENANCE OF SERVICE
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. When is he going to take some positive steps to reassure people in the Atlantic region that the erosion, to which my colleague referred, is not going to continue, in the sense that he knows that more and more goods are being shipped directly from Quebec to Newfoundland, thereby weakening the viability of the mainline through the maritimes? He knows there are rail line abandonment hearings scheduled to be heard by the CTC. When will the minister make some public statement that will assure people in the Atlantic region that the obligation for CN to maintain a national service is going to be maintained? Can the minister indicate the reason, the logic, in truncating these services? Why not keep the Stellarton office open, which is in a major industrial area?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I cannot prevent events from taking place. 1 cannot perform miracles.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. McDermid:: Nobody else over there can either.


Jean-Luc Pepin: One thing I am trying to do is to take an approach to transportation in the Atlantic region which will be a constructive one. I have already had a number of discussions with ministers of transport in the Atlantic area. As a matter of fact, I had one yesterday with the minister from New Brunswick. In these discussions I have been trying to convince the ministers that we should take a global approach to transportation problems in the maritime provinces. That would mean a multimodal approach. It would mean the establishment of an envelope under which the federal government would commit itself to at least the level of subsidy that exists now. It would mean the establishment of trade-offs between one mode and the other. I am working very hard on that and with, I think, coming successes.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, could 1 just ask the minister this. Does he still hold to the policy that transportation is an essential tool of regional development, as was stated by the Speaker of the Senate when he held the minister's portfolio and as was stated by the hon. member for Vegreville when he was minister of transport? Will he assure the House that he still believes that transportation is essential and still has an essential place in regional development policies in this country?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I do.
The Constitution


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Pinard:: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. After consultations with my colleagues on both sides, I am glad to report that we had two very fruitful meetings yesterday and that we came to some agreement on three important matters. I will deal with two of them today, and with the third one tomorrow afternoon.
First, we had discussions about the bill now under consideration, Bill C-54. We agreed to the following House order which I will read and which, I assume, will receive the unanimous consent of this House. I move:
That during consideration this day in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-54, an act to amend the statute law relating to income tax, a minister shall propose an amendment to Clause 8 of the said bill relating to the Small Business Development Bond; and
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, not later than 6 p.m. this day, every question necessary for the disposal of the Committee of the Whole stage, the report stage and the third reading and passage stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment, before the House adjourns.


Erik Nielsen: That is acceptable, Madam Speaker.


Mr. Knowles:: Yes, Madam Speaker, this motion is as the result of discussions to which we agreed. We welcome the proposed amendment regarding the Small Business Development Bond.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the proposal by the President of the Privy Council. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: It is so ordered.


Yvon Pinard: Tomorrow at three o'clock, we will deal with Bill C-24. Tomorrow we will talk about the agreement we have reached regarding that bill. It will not take the full day. After dealing with all stages of Bill C-24, we will resume second reading stage debate on the borrowing authority bill.


SPECIAL JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA
Yvon Pinard: The
second point I would like to deal with today, Madam Speaker, concerns the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution. We had fruitful discussions on this item as well. I am happy to report that the spirit of our discussions was to the effect that this was in fact the ultimate and last request for an extension of the deadline of that committee. The following motion will be agreed to without debate. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):

February 4, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
That, notwithstanding any previous order, the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution of Canada shall complete its work and make its final report not later than February 13, 1981; and
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours thereof.
It is clearly spelled out in the motion that it is to be no later than February 13. However, it is still possible, and I would even say likely, that the committee may report earlier than February 13. It would not go against the motion if that were to happen.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order of which I gave you notice yesterday. I will be as brief as possible. It concerns the tabling of documents in this House. You will recall. Madam Speaker, that reference was made yesterday, and I will deal with it in more detail in a moment or so, to a letter upon which reliance was placed when making certain points of debate. Reference was made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) on the program "Question Period" last Sunday, February 1, to a letter from the government at Westminster giving assurance that this government's constitutional package would be processed without question at Westminster.
As you know, Madam Speaker, the nature of those assurances, if any, has become a matter of dispute in this House. On both Monday and Tuesday, the Secretary of State for External Affairs used the letter from Prime Minister Thatcher to support the contention of the minister and of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that very sweeping promises had been made by the government at Westminster.
On Monday in this House the Prime Minister said, as reported at page 6769 of Hansard, and I quote:
It was a letter from the British Prime Minister. In it she said in essence what every British minister has said-and what the Prime Minister herself has said since the beginning-that the trouble was with the timing, not with the substance, and that they had no doubt that with a request from the Canadian Parliament they would have no choice but to put it through. She did say, as 1 told the House Friday, that the ministers had been told in September or October that with a charter in the package it would be more difficult. That was the position the British Prime Minister took.
Then there was an interjection by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark):
Will you table it?
Yesterday the Secretary of State for External Affairs said, and I quote from page 6817 of Hansard:
-that assurance was contained in a letter from Prime Minister Thatcher to our Prime Minister and it was to the effect that the government of the United
Kingdom would accept the responsibilities which it had already assumed and follow the tradition of proposing to the British Parliament, with its recommendation, our joint resolution.
On both days a request was made that the specific letter be tabled. Yesterday nothing was done during the question period or during Routine Proceedings. Having now had an opportunity to review Hansard for both days, and having had an opportunity to review the provisions of Beauchesne, 1 am convinced, and I submit that it is the duty of the Chair to direct that the letter be tabled.
In support of that submission I draw your attention to Citation 327(5) of Beauchesne, which is to be found at page 116 of the latest edition. It sets forth as follows:
To be cited, a document must be quoted-
And this is the important portion of the subclause, in my submission:
-or specifically used to influence debate.
That is the other half of it. I submit that a ruling simply based on that portion of subclause (5), that the document must be quoted, would be sufficient in this case if in fact the document was used, in this case a letter, specifically to influence debate.
There can be no question in my mind, or in the mind of any reasonable member of this House, that the document was, to use the specific words of the subclause, "specifically used to influence debate". There is no question of that, even though it was not directly quoted.
1 submit, if the Chair comes to the same conclusion I have that the letter was used on two successive days specifically to influence debate in this House, the Chair is bound to come to the conclusion that the document is such that it must be tabled under our rules, on request. As I pointed out, the request was made on two separate days, on several occasions. One further relevant citation, to be found in Beauchesne is 327(6), which reads:
If a Minister cites or quotes an official document in debate, he should be prepared to table it.
It might be argued, Madam Speaker, if one wants to be unduly confining, that the question period is not a debate in the sense used in these citations but, I submit, that conclusion cannot and should not be drawn. I suggest that a small "1" liberal interpretation of the rules should be applied, and has been applied in the past, I point out, because there is no question that what was going on yesterday in this chamber during question period, and the day before during question period, when this document was cited and used in support of the position of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and of the Prime Minister, was in fact debate.
I merely draw the Chair's attention to the Oxford Dictionary version of what "debate" is to support in a simple manner that contention.
Subsection (6), in my submission, requires the minister to be prepared to table a document if it is cited or quoted from.
February 4, 1981

There is one further point on which I am sure you will be advised by your officials, and that is that Subsection (6) also uses the phrase "official document". One must ask oneself, before coming to a rational conclusion on this submission, whether or not this letter was an official document. I simply want to refer you in this regard to a citation from the most recent edition of Beauchesne, 327(1), under the heading "Documents Cited". It states:
A Minister of the Crown is not at liberty to read or quote from a dispatch or other state paper not before the House, unless he be prepared to lay it upon the Table.
The following is the important phrase in this quotation:
This restraint is similar to the rule of evidence in courts of law, which prevents counsel from citing documents which have not been produced in evidence. The principle is so reasonable that it has not been contested; and when the objection has been made in time, it has been generally acquiesced in.
I am not going to go into the reluctance of the minister responsible for the status of women in respect of his shenanigans regarding the tabling of an affidavit that he used repeatedly to support arguments he made during that debate, but from that last submission I want to go to my final reference to you which is contained in the Journals of this House for Tuesday, February 22, 1972. This deals with whether or not we are considering here a public or a private document, because this has a bearing on the decision which I am calling upon the Chair to make.
At page 15 of Journals for that date the then Speaker said this:
I think the argument put forward by the hon. member for Calgary North is valid. The rule is clear enough. If a document is quoted in debate it has to be tabled. It was suggested by the President of the Privy Council that perhaps we are not dealing here with what is termed a state document.
I am sure that argument may well be made. The quotation continues:
This has always been the difficulty in the past-to determine what is a public document and what is a private document.
That is a decision the Chair will have to make in respect of the obligation to table this particular letter-is it a public document or is it a private letter? The Speaker went on to state:
My thought is that if a letter, even though it might have been written originally as a private letter, becomes part of the record of a department it becomes at that point a public document and a state paper.
There is no question about how the Speaker of that day dealt specifically with the nature of a letter which was required to be produced. The Speaker went on:
It seems to me that the documents to which the minister has referred are part of the official penitentiary files-
In this case this particular letter is part of the files of either the Secretary of State for External Affairs or of the Prime Minister.
The Speaker went on to say:
-part of the official penitentiary Tiles, or documents within the possession of the officials of the department, and I would think that any document of this kind which is cited by the minister ought to be tabled in the House.
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
It does not make any difference whether it is in the minister's possession or that of his officials.
I ask you to conclude from subsection (6) of citation 327, which I have quoted for your assistance, that this document, having been cited, and it being an official document, in debate, should be tabled by the minister, and in my submission the Chair is obliged to enforce that parliamentary practice.
In respect of Subsection (5) of Citation 327 of Beauchesne, and I emphasize this in my final remarks and submission to you, it indicates that:
To be cited, a document must be quoted or specifically used to influence debate.
In my submission you work back from (6) to (5) of Citation 327, and there is no question that this letter was used to influence debate, that it was therefore cited and, therefore, need not be quoted from. I know that is the argument I will get from the government House leader, but it does not have to be quoted from.
I am not submitting that mere reference is sufficient to require its tabling, but I am saying to you, if you do not accept that lesser of the two arguments, once the document has been cited and once it has been used to influence debate, then it is deemed to have been cited and thereby falls within both these subsections and the Chair is obliged, in my submission, to require its tabling.


Madam Speaker:: I have listened very carefully to the arguments and the citations from Beauchesne to support those arguments, but I do think I will have to look at the form in which the debate took place yesterday to determine the fact, as alleged by the hon. member, that it was specifically used to influence debate. At this moment in time I do not feel I can make a proper judgment and I would, therefore, like to take the matter under advisement.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, may I suggest that it was not just yesterday's debate, but also the debate on Monday. You stated you would look at the debates for yesterday when reviewing the matter, but I suggest our proceedings of Monday last are very important for consideration as well.


Madam Speaker:: I will take that into consideration as well.


Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I had hoped you would have invited submissions to support this case and, if it is your pleasure, I would propose to try to counter the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen).
This is an interesting argument and I am sure you will deliberate on it, Madam Speaker, but I believe on three of four counts the hon. member for Yukon is wrong. I suppose I could deal with Paragraph (6) of Citation 327 which was quoted.
The hon. member for Yukon talked about the minister's citing or quoting an official document in debate. To my knowledge-and I have had a chance to look only in a cursory

Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
way at the debates of the last couple of days-neither the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) nor the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) cited or quoted from a letter between the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of Great Britain. Reference was made thereto, and I believe there is adequate precedent in this House that the mere reference to a letter and the mere recalling of a conversation between two individuals do not constitute an absolute citation or quotation from a letter. It is also for that reason that when we come down to Beauchesne's Citation 327(7), the hon. member for Yukon was perhaps anticipating that 1 might use in our defence Citation 327(2), which reads as follows:
It has been admitted that a document which has been cited ought to be laid upon the Table of the House, if it can be done without injury to the public interest. The same rule, however, cannot be held to apply to private letters or memoranda.
I submit that we are talking about private correspondence between the Prime Minister of Canada and the Prime Minister of Great Britain, and there is a long-standing tradition that one does not divulge the contents of private correspondence between heads of state because that would perhaps prejudice relations between the countries involved.
However, the hon. member for Yukon anticipated my arguing Citation 327(2) by referring to Citation 327(7). Citation 327(7) reads as follows:
When a letter, even though it may have been written originally as a private letter, becomes part of a record of a department, it becomes a public document, and if quoted by a minister in debate, must be tabled on request.
Coming back to Citation 327(6), I clearly state unequivocally-and I choose to be proven wrong-that neither the Prime Minister nor the Secretary of State for External Affairs quoted from that letter, so therefore Citation 327(7) does not apply.
When one gets to Citation 327(5), I suppose here Your Honour has a very difficult job indeed because, as the hon. member for Yukon mentioned, Citation 327(5) states, and 1 quote:
To be cited, a document must be quoted or specifically used to influence debate.
A number of questions arise. Is the question period debate in the full sense of the word? The hon. member may refer to the Oxford Dictionary. I would rather refer to parliamentary precedent, and I leave that in Your Honour's hands. It is my contention that the spirit and tradition of the question period are not that it be debate in the strict sense of the word but the elicitation of answers and information from the government. Indeed, various Speakers over the years have talked about the inadequacy of answers and about the information aspect of question period. I therefore submit that question period is not debate in the true sense of the word. I know that hon. members opposite perhaps have a different interpretation, but what is important here, and what the hon. member for Yukon has asked Your Honour to do, is to go further and actually decide whether or not those references made by the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs actually influenced debate.
If I may say so, it is very presumptuous on the part of the hon. member for Yukon to ask Your Honour as the Speaker of this House to take a very, very subjective decision as to whether any answer or any action in this chamber has actually influenced debate. On those grounds I think that that particular argument falls short.
I believe I have made three or four points. Citation 327(2) is absolutely clear when we are talking about private letters or memoranda, and since there was no quotation from that document, Citation 327(7) does not apply.
Similarly, as I have stated, citation 327(6) is quite clear in that neither the Prime Minister nor the Secretary of State for External Affairs quoted or cited from that letter. They made references to it. I am not even sure the Prime Minister made references to it. I think it was the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Prime Minister was talking about conversations he had with Mrs. Thatcher.
Finally, to ask Your Honour to decide whether or not any answer or any action taken in this place, whether in debate or in the question period, may influence debate, is somewhat presumptuous and, I would say, beyond your purview as Speaker of the House.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Whom do you recommend we ask to decide the question?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I shall be very brief. This question is very simple. The hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has essentially based his argument on Citation 327(5) of Beau-chesne and he has stated that the letter in question was used to influence the debate. There are two reasons why his argument is not valid. The first is that it concerns a personal letter. Even if someone had quoted from a personal letter, no private member or minister could be forced to table such a letter. As this concerns a personal letter, therefore Citation 327(5) does not apply. The second reason is that, to force a member of the House or a minister to table a document, a passage from this document has to have been quoted. In this case, absolutely no passage of this letter was quoted in the House by anyone. For these two reasons, namely, the fact that this concerns a letter of a personal nature and that no passage from it was quoted, it is obvious that we cannot force anyone to table the letter in question.
If the hon. member for the Yukon insists that it is true and indeed that a personal letter is involved, the fact of having tried to influence the debate by referring to this letter would amount to quoting from the letter. However, even if he were right, which we do not accept because I do not believe that this had any influence whatsoever on the debate, but even if we were to admit that he was right and that this could have influenced the debate, the fact remains that the document involved was a personal letter.
February 4, 1981

Citation 327(5) applies only to public documents and not to personal letters. No member of the House can be forced to table a personal letter even if an excerpt has been quoted. Citation 327(2) makes this very clear. Moreover, even if we were dealing with a public document, since there was no quotation, the argument that it might have influenced the debate is therefore denied, as the hon. members can see for themselves in Hansard. We have in no way influenced any debate whatsoever, and 1 would go so far as to ask of which debate the hon. member is talking. All this occurred during the oral question period and I do not know to what debate the hon. member refers. In any event, even if we were to admit that the Oral Question Period and 1 do not knowto what debate the hon. way influenced. As you can see for yourself, Madam Speaker, the document involved is a personal letter of which no excerpt was quoted, and Citation 327 of Beauchesne which seems to me very relevant in this regard therefore settles this whole matter.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon knows that I have already heard him. Does he have anything to add to the point of order he has raised?


Erik Nielsen: No, Madam Speaker, I do not intend to add to it. I merely invite the Chair, when considering the matter, to take what we would call in court judicial notice of the title on the front page of Hansard. Hansard is entitled "House of Commons Debates


Madam Speaker:: I will take this question under advisement and rule on it later.


MR. TOWERS-PROCEDURE RESPECTING S.O. 43 MOTION
Madam Speaker:: Yesterday the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) rose on a point of order with regard to his motion under Standing Order 43. I said that I would look at the motion a little more closely, because it is very difficult when one is just listening to a motion in the House always to judge whether it is in order. Especially if the judgment is challenged I think it is prudent to read the motion a second time and to try to see whether my decision was a bit too hasty.
I did look at it, and I see no reason to change my view on that. I also looked at the motion presented by the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen), which I did accept and put to the House. There was a difference between those two motions which justified my decision to put the motion by the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton, but I did not feel I could accept the motion of the hon. member for Red Deer.
The hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton did expose reasons of pressing necessity, while the hon. member for Red Deer did not. The motion from the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton did refer to something that had happened within the last few days. Moreover, the motion of the hon. member for Red Deer
Tabling of Documents
put me in a difficult position. If I had accepted his motion, then the next day I would have had to accept a motion to encourage every other group in society which renders a service to the community, such as doctors, nurses, firefighters, and so on. It is a very commendable idea, but I am afraid it does not qualify for a motion under Standing Order 43. I regret that I have to refuse the motion.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Thank you for your consideration, Madam Speaker. One of the reasons why my motion was not presented in the form that you would like was that you had made an earlier ruling in the House that we were not to refer to what was taking place in the committee meetings with regard to the Constitution.
You will remember that the police commissions made a representation to the constitutional committee, and my motion was related to that. I did not refer to the representations they made to the committee because of your ruling. However, I thought it was of urgent and pressing necessity because of what we have heard today, that the resolution is to be returned to the House by February 13. The representations made by police commissions across Canada are tied in with my motion under Standing Order 43.


Madam Speaker:: That is the difficulty in which hon. members put the Chair when they bring things into this House that are being discussed in a committee. The Chair has no idea what is going on there, and is not present during the deliberations. If the hon. member followed the rule that he should not cite proceedings of the committee in the House, I commend him for that, but he also has to follow all the other rulings and, when bringing in a motion under Standing Order 43, he has to do it according to the rules that apply to that Standing Order. Since he did not, I cannot accept his motion.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: February 4, 1981
Order Paper Questions


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 995, 1,005, 1,033, 1,034, 1,035, 1,036, 1,197, 1,198, 1,208, 1,209, 1,250, 1,251, 1,252, 1,267, 1,268, 1,269, 1,270, 1,315, 1,517, 1,589, 1,590, 1,592, 1,593, 1,594, 1,789, 1,790, 1,791, 1,792 and 1,799.
1 should point out to you, Madam Speaker, that all the questions answered were in the name of the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt).
[ Text]


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Were cars rented by Mr. Yvon Gariepy and/or Madam Claudette Nadeau or by any branch of the Department of Supply and Services for their use and, if so, for what purpose and did the vehicle, at any time, travel to Chateau Montebello?
2.	Were invoices for payment signed by Mr. Gariepy, subsequently sent to Madam Claudette Nadeau for countersigning approval, paid for from Crown Assets Disposal Corporation funds and have such bills been destroyed?
3.	Were any sums of money involved charged to other aspects of the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation budget?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: The
Department of Supply and Services, Crown Assets Disposal Corporation and the Royal Canadian Mint report as follows:
1.	(i) No car was rented by the Department of Supply and Services for Mr. Y. Gariepy or Mrs. C. Nadeau. No car was rented by Mr. Y. Gariepy or by Mrs. C. Nadeau at any time, to travel to Chateau Montebello.
(ii)	No.
2.	No.
3.	No.


Mr. Cossitt: |. Was an attitude survey or anything of a similar nature taken in the past three years on employees of the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation and, if so (a) how many questions were on the survey (b) were employees instructed to answer the survey and return it to Mr. Robert Myre, Industrial Psychologist, c/o Slethcm-Garcau Ltd?
2.	Docs the government consider such surveys as an invasion of privacy of public servants and, if so, what steps will be taken to correct the situation?
3.	Did the survey show a low morale in the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation and was it made public and, if not (a) for what reason (b) will it be made public?
4.	What was the total cost of the survey?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: I am
informed by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation as follows: 1,
3 and 4. See reply to question No. 433 answered January 23, 1979, Hansard page 2448, 4th Session, Thirtieth Parliament.
2.	The individuals were informed of the purpose for which the information was being collected.
The information collected in the said survey was provided by the individual employees on a voluntary basis and was forwarded directly to the consultant.
No individuals were requested to identify their returned questionnaire.
In conclusion, for the above mentioned reasons, it is not believed that the survey was an invasion of privacy.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	As of June 3, 1980, is Mr. Yvon Gariepy, Master of the Royal Canadian Mint, outside of Canada on government business and, if so (a) which countries will he be visiting and between what dates (b) for what purpose (c) what is the budgeted cost of his trip (d) what are the names of any hotels or other accommodations to be used that will be paid for by the taxpayer?
2.	Is Mr. Gariepy scheduled to return to his office and/or Canada on June 12, 1980?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: I am
informed by the Royal Canadian Mint as follows: 1. Yes.
(a)	Netherlands, Greece, Federal Republic of Germany, France. The divulgation of the names of the other countries visited could be materially injurious to the financial interests of the corporation. Between May 18 and June 11, 1980.
(b)	In the Netherlands:
conference of Mint Directors of several countries.
In Greece:
meetings with our European distributors of Canadian numismatic coins.
In the Federal Republic of Germany: meetings with representatives of two national banks selling our bullion gold coin-The Maple Feaf-in various parts of the world.
In France:
meeting with the Mint Director in Paris.
(c)	$6,800.
(d)	The name of the hotels or other accommodations that will be paid by the corporation are:
Holiday Inn, Utrecht, Netherlands
Novotel Alpha, Amsterdam, Netherlands Hilton, Athens, Greece
Schlosshotel Kronberg, Frankfurt, Federal Republic of Germany Meurice, Paris, France.
2. Yes.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	As of June 3, 1980, is Madam Claudette Nadeau, president and general manager of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation outside of Canada on government business and, if so (a) which countries will she be visiting and between
February 4, 1981

what dates (b) for what purpose (c) what is the budgeted cost of her trip (d) what are the names of any hotels or other accommodations to be used that will be paid for by the taxpayer?
2.	Is Madam Nadeau scheduled to return to her office and/or Canada on June 12, 1980?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: I am
informed by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation as follows: 1. Yes.
(a)	Netherlands, Greece, Germany and France. Between May 18 and June 11, 1980.
(b)	As a representative of the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation:
to discuss sales of major equipment, including ships and aircraft;
to negotiate contract with German government surplus disposal agency;
to discuss disposal services provided to German armed forces training in Canada;
to exchange information on disposal activities in those countries.
(c)	$4,500.
(d)	The names of the hotels or other accommodations that will be paid by the corporation are:
Holiday Inn, Utrecht, Netherlands Novotel Alpha, Amsterdam, Netherlands Hilton, Athens, Greece Schlosshotel Kronberg, Frankfurt, Germany Bristol Hotel, Bonn, Germany Meurice, Paris, France.
2. Yes.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did Madam Claudette Nadeau, president of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, visit Stratford, Ontario, in 1978 and did she fly from Ottawa to Toronto and proceed to Stratford in a rented car paid for by the taxpayer and, if so, what was the purpose of her visit?
2.	(a) Was an account submitted for payment for the rented car from Toronto to Stratford and return by Mrs. Nadeau and, if so (i) was it approved (ii) who approved it (iii) was the account paid from public funds and, if so, by which department or Crown corporation (b) are the records missing from the files and, if so (i) for what reason and what are all the details (ii) will an investigation be carried out?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: I am informed by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation as follows: 1. Mrs. Nadeau visited Stratford not in 1978, but in 1979. She flew from Ottawa to Toronto and proceeded to Stratford in a rented car paid for by the corporation, en route to a meeting at the University of Western Ontario, London.
2. (a) Yes.
(i)	Yes.
(ii)	Mrs. C. Nadeau, president and general manager.
(iii)	Paid by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation.
Order Paper Questions
(b)	No.
(i)	Not applicable.
(ii)	Not applicable.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did Mr. Yvon Gariepy, Master of the Royal Canadian Mint, visit Stratford, Ontario, in 1978 and did he fly from Ottawa to Toronto and proceed to Stratford in a rented car paid for by the taxpayer and, if so, what was the purpose of his visit?
2.	(a) Was an account submitted for payment for the rented car from Toronto to Stratford and return by Mr. Gariepy and, if so (i) was it approved (ii) who approved it (iii) was the account paid from public funds and, if so, by which department or Crown corporation (b) are the records missing from the files and, if so (i) for what reason and what arc all the details (ii) will an investigation be carried out?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: I am
informed by the Royal Canadian Mint as follows:
1.	(i) Not in 1978, but he went to Stratford in 1979.
(ii)	He did fly from Ottawa to Toronto and proceeded to Stratford as an additional authorized operator in a car rented by a second Crown Corporation.
(iii)	The purpose of this trip was to meet with a marketing consultant.
2.	(a) No.
(b)	Not applicable.


Mr. Cossitt: Since question No. 1,033 was placed on the Order Paper by the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville asking in part if Mr. Yvon Gariepy, Master of the Royal Canadian Mint, was scheduled to return to Canada on June 12, 1980, has Mr. Gariepy made any change or alteration of any kind in regard to his return flight, including change of airline, etc?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: I am
informed by the Royal Canadian Mint as follows: No.


Mr. Cossitt: Since question No. 1,034 was placed on the Order Paper by the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville asking in part if Madam Claudette Nadeau, president and general manager of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, was scheduled to return to Canada on June 12, 1980, has Madam Nadeau made any change or alteration of any kind in regard to her return flight, including change of airline, etc?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: I am
informed by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation as follows: No.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	In the past two years, how many luncheons, parties or functions of any kind whatsoever was the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation involved in, including the date and the cost in each case?
2.	Were luncheons held on Fridays over a period of time at an adjacent establishment where the liquor and wine bills were paid for by the government and, if so, in each case (a) for whom was the luncheon held (b) what was the

February 4, 1981
Order Paper Questions
amount of beverages purchased (c) what is the name and job designation of any person authorizing such functions?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: I am
informed by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation as follows:
1.	From the audited records kept by the corporation it is not possible to identify an exact number of functions. However, for the purpose of this question, the corporation has surveyed the last two fiscal years and reports the following rounded amounts for sales promotion, customer relations and hospitality:
Head Office Regional Offices
1978- 1979	$14,000	$7,0001979- 1980	$16,000	$9,0002.	The corporation was able to identify the following functions which were held on Fridays:2.	No, the Auditor General has the authority to look into any matter which his office feels needs investigation.3.	Yes.
Yes, showing Mr. Yvon Gariepy as additional authorized operator and Mrs. Claudette Nadeau as principal operator and lessee. See also question 994 tabled this day.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did Mr. Yvon Gariepy, Master of the Royal Canadian Mint, attend a conference in The Netherlands of mint directors from other countries and, if so (a) with whom did he meet and what were their positions (b) on what dates (c) in which locations and at what times were such meetings held (d) what is a detailed account of what was learned or accomplished at such meetings?
2.	At what hotels did Mr. Gariepy stay and what was the cost to the taxpayer?
Three instances, January 14, March 7 and May 2, 1980.
(a)	(i) Jan. 14 -for the departure of the Chief,
Administration and Personnel
(ii)	Mar. 7	- for the departure of an Executive
Secretary.
(iii)	May 2	- for the departure of a Secretary and
Purchasing Clerk.
(b)	(i)	$105.00
(ii)	$ 24.00
(iii)	$ 40.00
(c)	(i)	Mrs. C. Nadeau, President	and General
Manager
(ii)	R. Asselin,	Vice-President,	Finance	and
Administration.
(iii)	R. Asselin,	Vice-President,	Finance	and
Administration.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: I am
informed by the Royal Canadian Mint as follows:
1.	Yes.
(a)	Mint directors of various countries of the world and their officers, officials for the government of The Netherlands, several representatives from the private industry interested in the coinage business.
(b)	From May 18 to 24, 1980.
(c)	Utrecht and Amsterdam conference activities were held all day long from Monday 19 to Friday 23.
(d)	General information concerning coinage and the operating of a mint in addition to contacts with several representatives of countries that we have done business with.
2.	Holiday Inn, Utrecht
Novotel Alpha, Amsterdam
The cost to the corporation was $1,700.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Were representatives of the Auditor General's office recently on the premises of the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation and, if so (a) as of June 9, 1980, were they still on the premises (b) on what dale did they commence their auditing?
2.	Will the government request the Auditor General to reopen the 1978 accounts for re-examination with particular reference to certain travel and accommodation expenses and, in particular, a car rental bill from Toronto to Stratford and return?
3.	Is a copy of the rental bill attached to the cancelled cheque for payment and, if so, does it show the name of the driver as Mr. Yvon Gariepy, Master of the Royal Canadian Mint and the lessee, Madam Claudette Nadeau of the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation and. if not, who was the driver and who was the lessee?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: I am
informed by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation as follows:
1. Yes.
(a)	Yes.
(b)	May 21, 1980.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did Madam Claudette Nadeau, president and general manager of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, visit the Netherlands on a fact-finding mission to determine how other governments handle disposal of Crown assets and, if so (a) with whom did she meet and what were their positions (b) on what dates (c) in which locations and at what times were such meetings (d) what is a detailed account of what was learned or accomplished at such meetings?
2.	At what hotels did Madam Nadeau stay and what was the cost to the taxpayer?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: I am
informed by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation as follows:
1. Yes.
(a)	(i) Mr. J. J. denBoer, Service des domaines, Ministry of Finance.
(ii) Mr. W. Blokzyl, Deputy Director of State Property, Ministry of Finance, The Hague, Netherlands.
February 4, 1981

(iii)	Director of personnel of materiel disposal.
(iv)	Director of operations of surplus or seized goods.
(v)	Potential customers of the corporation.
(b)	May 21 to May 24, 1980.
(c)	Above (a) (i) and (ii) in The Hague at the officials' respective offices, during normal business hours.
Above (a) (iii) and (iv) in and around Amsterdam visiting various retail store outlets for seized goods during normal business hours, plus evening of May
23. '
Above (a) (v) in Amsterdam at individuals' offices, during normal business hours.
(d)	Future markets for sale of various Canadian surplus materiels; various means of disposal, methods of operations, including retail store outlets for seized goods; supply functions; statutory authorities.
2. (i) Holiday Inn, Utrecht, Novolta Alpha, Amsterdam.
(ii) The cost to the corporation is $340.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did Mr. Yvon Garicpy, Master of the Royal Canadian Mint state on or about June 12, 1980, that he and Madam Claudette Nadeau, president and general manager of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, sometimes travelled together "when she is doing business, sometimes when I am doing business. It is normal for us to pay our own ways when not on business" and, if so, what were the amounts of any moneys refunded to the Receiver General of Canada for expenses incurred by either party, prior to the recently concluded trip, for previous trips that were in part or in whole classified as pleasure trips?
2.	On what dates and for how many days after each trip was money refunded?
3.	If money was not refunded at any time, how were the two Crown corporations able to determine that no portions of the trips that were for pleasure were not paid for from public funds?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: I am
informed by the Royal Canadian Mint as follows:
1.	Yes. No money was refunded to the Mint because no personal expense for pleasure trips has been charged.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	The President of the corporation charges only the portion of the trips that is applicable for the time he travels on business.
I am informed by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation as follows: 1. (i) Not applicable; (ii) If such a statement has been made, no money was refunded because expenses for pleasure trips have never been charged to the corporation.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	With respect to the president of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, only such expenses relating to the corporation's business have been charged.


Mr. Cossitt: 1. Did Mr. Yvon Garicpy, Master of the Royal Canadian Mint, visit Greece to meet with European distributors of Canadian coins and, if so (a) with whom did
Order Paper Questions
he meet and what were their positions (b) on what dates (c) in which locations and at what times were such meetings held (d) what is a detailed account of what was learned or accomplished at such meetings?
2. At what hotels did Mr. Garicpy stay and what was the cost to the taxpayer?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: I am
informed by the Royal Canadian Mint as follows:
1.	Yes.
(a)	The European distributors of the mint's numismatic coins (16 organizations); the representatives of the mint's marketing agent in Europe; the officials of the Athens mint.
(b)	May 24 to 27, 1980, and May 30, 1980.
(c)	In Athens, every day, at various times, on May 25, 26, 27 and 30.
(d)	The purpose of our annual meetings is to review, with our official distributors, all aspects of the management of the program for the previous year, to plan the next year and to discuss the promotion program in Europe.
The visit of the mint is made to be better informed on how other countries are proceeding and to explore the possibility of doing business with them.
2.	Hilton, Athens.
The cost to the corporation was $920.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did Madam Claudette Nadeau, president and general manager of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, visit Greece on a fact-finding mission to determine how other governments handle disposal of Crown assets and, if so (a) with whom did she meet and what were their positions (b) on what dates (c) in which locations and what times were such meetings (d) what is a detailed account of what was learned or accomplished at such meetings?
2.	At what hotels did Madam Nadeau stay and what was the cost to the taxpayer?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: I am
informed by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation as follows:
1. Yes.
(a)	(i) Mr. Kanelopoulos, President, Government Supplies Organization;
(ii)	Mr. Kalamidos, Director General, Government Supplies, Trade Ministry;
(iii)	Mr. Wismer, Commercial Attache, Canadian Government;
(iv)	Potential customers of the corporation.
(b)	May 24 to 27, 1980.
(c)	In Athens, at the officials' respective offices, during normal
business hours.
(d)	Future markets for sale of Canadian surplus ships; various
means of government disposal; methods of operations; supply functions; statutory authorities.
2. (i) Hilton, Athens.
(ii) The cost to the corporation is $230.

February 4, 1981
Order Paper Questions MASTER OF ROYAL CANADIAN MINT


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did Mr. Yvon Gariepy, Master of the Royal Canadian Mint, meet with banks in Germany which distribute the Canadian gold maple leaf coin and, if so (a) with whom did he meet and what were their positions (b) on what dates (c) in which locations and at what times were such meetings held (d) what is a detailed account of what was learned or accomplished at such meetings?
2.	At what hotels did Mr. Gariepy stay and what was the cost to the taxpayer?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1 am
informed by the Royal Canadian Mint as follows:
1.	Yes.
(a)	High officials of two important international banks dealing in the trading of precious metals. The names are not being mentioned because their disclosure could be materially injurious to the financial interests of the corporation.
(b)	June 4 and 5, 1980.
(c)	Frankfurt, late afternoon and evening of June 4 and the morning and afternoon of June 5.
(d)	The purpose of the meetings was to discuss business related to the sales by these two banks of the Canadian gold maple leaf in Europe and other parts of the world.
2.	Schlosshotel Kronberg. The cost to the corporation is $530.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did Madam Claudette Nadeau, President and General Manager of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, visit Germany to renegotiate a contract with a company handling surplus equipment at the Canadian Armed Forces base in Lahr and, if so (a) with whom did she meet, what were their positions and what was the name of the company (b) on what dates (c) in which locations and at what times were such meetings held (d) what is a detailed account of what was learned or accomplished at such meetings?
2.	At what hotels did Madam Nadeau stay and what was the cost to the taxpayer?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: I am
informed by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation as follows:
1. Yes.
(a)	(i) Mr. V. Prsychowski, President, VEBEG Ver-wertungsgesellschaft m.b.h.;
(ii)	Mr. K. Cron, President, VEBEG Verwertungs-gesellschaft m.b.h.;
(iii)	Dr. W. Diestelmeier Ministry of Defence;
(iv)	Mr. Ernst Knebel Ministerialdirigent Im, Bonn;
(v)	Mr. Reginald Berger
Germany Ministry of Defence, Bonn.
(b)	June 4, 5, 6, 1980.
(c)	June 4-Frankfurt, at the officials' respective offices. June 5 and 6-Bonn, at the officials' respective offices. During normal business hours.
(d)	Final contract executed with VEBEG, German disposal techniques, financial implications of disposal activities, expanded base for disposal of Canadian Government Surplus abroad.
2. (i) Schlosshotel, Frankfurt Bristol Hotel, Bonn;
(ii) The cost to the corporation is $471.


Mr. Cossitt: Did the Minister of Supply and Services order an investigation of Madame Claudette Nadeau. President and General Manager of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation and, if so, is it anticipated that there will be a change in Madam Nadeau's status and, if so, would such a change have any significance in connection with any present investigation?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: (i)	No.
(ii)	Not applicable.
(iii)	Not applicable.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is the government aware of a rental agreement contract between Madam Claudette Nadeau, President of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation and Hertz Canada Ltd. numbered 90701 1582 and, if so (a) was the vehicle rented at the Toronto International Airport on or about June 3, 1979 (b) was the rental contract signed by Madame Nadeau (c) did the contract have an attachment authorizing an additional driver and, if so, was it signed by Mr. Yvonne Gariepy, Master of the Royal Canadian Mint?
2.	Did the vehicle travel on government business for the Royal Canadian Mint or Crown Assets Disposal Corporation and, if so (a) to which locations (b) did the vehicle travel 429 kilometres (c) did the vehicle travel at any time to Stratford, Ontario and did Mr. Gariepy and Madam Nadeau attend the Stratford Festival on the instructions of the government and, if so, what were the reasons for such instructions?
3.	Was the vehicle rented charged to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation and, if so (a) under what authority (b) was the total public money spent for use of the vehicle for approximately two days $94.79?
4.	Did Madam Nadeau or Mr. Gariepy reimburse the Receiver General of Canada at a subsequent date, and, if so, on what date and in what amount?
5.	What are the amounts and full details of all other accounts paid by the government in connection with the trip in the days immediately preceding or immediately following the car rental including means and cost of transportation from Ottawa to Toronto and return?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: I am
informed by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation as follows:
1.	Yes, the corporation is aware.
(a)	Yes.
(b)	Yes.
(c)	Yes, as an additional authorized operator.
2.	Crown Assets Disposal Corporation.
(a)	Western University, London via Stratford.
(b)	Yes.
(c)	(i) Yes.
(ii)	No.
(iii)	Not applicable.
February 4, 1981

3.	Yes.
(a)	The president of the corporation.
(b)	The total amount was of $94.79 paid for by the corporation.
4.	(i) No.
(ii) Not relevant.
5.	En route to Ottawa, the president of the corporation had an interview with CBC in Toronto and also met with one
customer of the corporation.	
Voyageur Travel (Airfare)	$ 105.85
Victoria Inn (Lodging)	1 11.00
Taxi Fares (a) To Ottawa Airport	14.00
(b) To and from TV studio in Toronto	30.00
(c) Transit	2.80
	$ 263.65
Hertz Canada Ltd. (Toronto/Stratford/London/Toronto)	94.79
	$ 358.44


Mr. Cossitt: Is membership in "Le Cercle Universitaire d Ottawa , 453 Laurier Avenue East, paid by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation or any other government source for Madam Claudette Nadeau, President and General Manager of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation and, if so (a) is the membership for $250 a year (b) what are all the reasons that this is paid from government funds (c) on what date did such payments begin, how many have been made and on what dates?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: I am
informed by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation as follows: yes, by the corporation.
(a)	Yes.
(b)	The membership is considered to be a legitimate business expense in the interest of the corporation's activities.
(c)	November 30, 1977. Four.
November 30, 1977 (prorata).
February 15, 1978.
December 15, 1978.
January 9, 1980.


Mr. Cossitt: Is membership in "Le Cercle Universitaire d'Ottawa , 453 Laurier Avenue East, paid by the Royal Canadian Mint or any other government source for Mr. Yvon Gariepy, Master of the Royal Canadian Mint and, if so (a) is the membership $250 a year (b) what are all the reasons that this is paid from government funds (c) on what date did such payments begin, how many have been made and on what dates?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: I am
informed by the Royal Canadian Mint as follows:
The membership to the Cercle is paid by the Royal Canadian Mint.
(a)	Yes, the amount is $250 a year.
Order Paper Questions
(b)	The membership is considered to be a legitimate business expense in the interest of the corporation's activities.
(c)	The membership has been paid on a yearly basis since 1976.
1976: $150 for 9 months, June 1, 1976
1977: $200, December 16, 1976, and $50,
May 12, 1977
1978: $250, January 4, 1978 1979: $250, December 12, 1978 1980: $250, January 3, 1980.


Mr. Cossitt: At any time since questions were placed on the Order Paper by the hon. Member for Leeds-Grenville concerning Madam Claudette Nadeau of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, have auditors or other persons searched files in the corporation looking for evidence of certain expenditures and payments made on behalf of Madam Nadeau, or Yvon Gariepy, Master of the Royal Canadian Mint and, if so (a) has it been found that any files are missing and, if so, what is a list of all such items (b) on whose instructions was a search made?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1 am
informed by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation as follows: the field audit examination of the corporation's records by the Auditor General was completed on July 15, 1980. Since then no auditors or external persons have searched corporation files. However, it is common internal practice to review financial documentation including expenditures for budget analysis purposes and for replies to parliamentary inquiries.
(a)	(i) No file has been reported missing.
(ii) Not applicable.
(b)	If any such search is to occur, it is the vice-president, finance and administration who authorizes it as per normal procedure.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is Mr. J. M. Bertrand employed by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation and, if so (a) in what capacity and what are his duties (b) was he at any time chief of finance (c) was he on sick leave at any time within the past two years and, if so, for how long and was or was not the time involved approximately one month?
2.	On what date did Mr. Bertrand return to work and, on that date, did he find on his return that his position as chief of finance was occupied by another person and, if so (a) was he advised of this before his return and, if not, for what reason (b) who occupies the position at present or the equivalent thereof (c) was the present appointment made by or on the recommendation of Madam Claudette Nadeau (d) what are all the details why such a step was taken?
3.	Are senior appointments in the corporation made by Madam Nadeau and, if so, under what authority?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: I am
informed by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation as follows:
1. Yes.
(a) Accountant in a probationary capacity.

February 4, 1981
Order Paper Questions
Duties: Plans, organizes, supervises and controls the personnel, activities and other resources of the accounting division.
Plans, schedules and produces regular and ad hoc reports.
Establishes and maintains quality control over computer input and output.
Provides functional direction to subordinate staff in matters relating to corporation financial management practices.
(b)	No, he occupied the position of chief of finance in a probationary capacity.
(c)	This information is considered to be personal.
2.	October 6, 1980. Mr. Bertrand was never confirmed in the position of chief of finance (see 1. (b)).
(a)	Fie was officially informed on August 28, 1980, that his position would be that of accountant on probation.
(b)	Michel Bourcier occupies the position of chief of finance in a probationary capacity.
(c)	No.
(d)	Not applicable.
3.	The appointment of officers is made by the board of directors of the corporation in accordance with the procedure established by the Surplus Crown Assets Act, Paragraph 7(1), and by the bylaw No. 3 of the corporation. Paragraph 7.01, approved by order in council PC 1979-1054, March 28, 1979.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	In the past three years, was any money paid from public funds to "Lc Cercle Universitaire d'Ottawa" by the Royal Canadian Mint and, if so (a) what was the amount per year (b) what was the total for the three years combined (c) for what purpose (d) how many persons were entertained and (i) on what dates in each case (ii) what were their names and the purpose of such entertainment?
2.	Was Mr. Yvon Gariepy, Master of the Royal Canadian Mint, present at any of the gatherings or involved in arranging directly or indirectly such entertainment and, if so, on how many occasions?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1. Money was paid by the Royal Canadian Mint but not from public funds.
(a)	1977 $3,051.88
1978	$3,594.29
1979	$8,176.24
(b)	$14,822.41.
(c)	in payment of meetings with clients, businessmen or other persons who have business dealings with the corporation.
(d)	about 600 persons were entertained during the last three years
(i) 1977
Date	No. o
February 24	2
March 3	4
April 5	10
April 6	3
April 12	5
April 21	8
May 3	8
May 6	2
May 19	3
May 20	4
May 25	7
June 2	3
June 1 1	10
June 20	7
July 15	3
August 1 1	3
August 29	2
August 30	4
August 30	5
September 16	4
September 20	7
September 21	8
September 22	8
October 6	5
October 1 3	2
October 18	4
October 25	2
October 28	2
November 2	7
November 4	2
November 10	2
November 11	2
November 22	4
January 10, 1978	5
January 1 7	8
January 24	6
January 25	11
February 4	2
February 8	7
February 16	4
April 2	2
April 4	9
April 27	5
May 3	3
May 1 2	4
May 17	2
June 21	12
July 5	2
July 19	6
July 24	7
August 8	7
August 9	8
September 8	2
September 19	10
September 25	8
November 14	2
February 4, 1981

November 21	4
December 1	14
December 2	12
December 20	3
January 17, 1979	4
January 18	2
January 25	2
January 30	8
February 2	2
February 7	7
February 17	8
February 22	2
February 23	2
March 3	6
March 6	4
March 8	5
March 12	2
March 16	2
April 7	4
April 1 1	6
April 18	9
April 30	3
May 1	2
May 9	7
May 22	3
May 25	2
May 28	6
May 30	2
June 1	4
June 1 3	2
June 21	16
June 27	7
July 6	8
July 20	5
July 24	9
July 25	2
Jyly 31	11
August 16	2
August 28	3
September 4	24
September 5	16
September 7	3
September 13	4
October 1 5	7
November 7	4
November 8	6
November 13	3
November 1 5	6
November 16	4
November 21	6
November 22	3
November 28	4
November 29	2
November 30	4
(ii) The purpose of such entertainment was to meet clients, businessmen or other persons who have business dealings with the mint.
Order Paper Questions
The names are not being mentioned because their disclosure could reasonably be expected to be materially injurious to the financial interests of the corporation.
2. Mr. Gariepy was present at about 108 gatherings.


Mr. Cossitt: Has the government decided to dismiss Mr. Yvon Gariepy, Master of the Royal Canadian Mint and (a) if so, on what date and for what reasons (b) if not, is such dismissal under consideration and, if so, on what date will it take place and for what reasons?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: (a) No.
(b) Not applicable.


[Stage Direction]
Has the government decided to dismiss Madam Claudette Nadeau, president of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation and (a) if so, on what date and for what reasons (b) if not, is such dismissal under consideration and, if so, on what date will it take place and for what reasons?
Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: (a) No.
(b) Not applicable.
What is the name of the telephone receptionist at Crown Assets Disposal Corporation head office and is this person or anyone else refusing to put through telephone calls to members of the corporation, particularly Mr. Jean-Marie Bertrand and, if so, what are all the reasons that Mr. Bertrand is not being allowed to receive his telephone calls?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Forget. No. Not applicable.


Mr. Cossitt: What is the average time taken by Madam Claudette Nadeau, president of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, to return telephone messages left for her. specifically from members of the news media or Members of Parliament?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: telephone messages are returned as soon as possible.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is Mr. Michel Bourcier chief of finance for Crown Assets Disposal Corporation and, if so (a) on what date was he appointed (b) what is his exact annual salary (c) what are the details of his work experience, if any, in previous governmcnl services?
2.	(a) Was Mr. Bourcier appointed to the position held by Mr. Jean-Marie Bertrand and was this done without Mr. Bertrand being informed and, if so, for what reason (b) was Mr. Bertrand demoted in salary and, if so, to what figure (c) is Mr. Bertrand occupying a desk without a telephone (d) what are all the reasons for the present treatment of Mr. Bertrand by the corporation?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: I am
informed by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation as follows:
1. Mr. Michel Bourcier is occupying the position of chief of finance in a probationary capacity.
(a)	September 2, 1980.
(b)	Salary range is $26,960 to $40,440.


Mr. Cossitt: Question No. 1,791-Mr. Cossitt:

February 4, 1981
Order Paper Questions
(c)	None, Mr. Bourcier has never been employed in federal government services.
2. (a) Yes. Mr. Bertrand was informed of the change in his duties, as described in question No. 1,593. 2 (a) answered this day.
(b)	No. Not applicable.
(c)	Yes, the desk for the accountant position does not yet have a telephone; however, since we are an open office concept, telephones are accessible to every employee at all time.
(d)	See question 1,593 answered this day.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, if questions Nos. 994, 1,015 and 1,595 could be made orders for returns, those returns would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that questions Nos. 994, 1,015 and 1,595 be deemed to have been made orders for returns?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Since the appointment of Madam Claudette Nadeau as President of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, what is a complete record of ail trips taken by her at public expense including, in each case, the (a) date and duration (b) reasons
(c)	cost (d) name and job designation of any person travelling with her (e) destination?
2.	What was the total cost for all of the trips?
Return tabled.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Since the appointment of Mr. Yvon Gariepy as Master of the Royal Canadian Mint, what is a complete record of all trips taken by him at public expense including, in each case, the (a) date and duration (b) reasons (c) cost
(d)	name and job designation of any person travelling with him (e) destination ?
2.	What was the total cost for all of the trips?
Return tabled.


Mr. Cossitt: 1. in the past three years, was any money paid from public funds to "Lc Cercle Universitaire d'Ottawa" by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation and, if so
(a)	what was the amount per year (b) what was the total for the three years combined (c) for what purpose (d) how many persons were entertained and (i)
on what dates in each case (ii) what were their names and the purpose of such entertainment?
2. Was Madam Claudette Nadeau, President and General Manager of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, present at any of the gatherings or involved in arranging directly or indirectly such entertainment and, if so, on how many occasions?
Return tabled.


David Michael Collenette: I ask. Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, Notice of Motion for the Production of Paper No. 25 is acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservations about confidential and internal working papers.


Madam Speaker:: With the reservations and conditions mentioned by the hon. parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that Notice of Motion No. 25 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 25-Mr. Skelly:
That an order of the House do issue for a copy of the report and the recommendations of the Department of National Defence into the operations of the Rescue Co-ordination Centre at Victoria, British Columbia, and the deployment of search and rescue resources connected with the loss of the freighter Lee Wang Zin on December 25, 1979.
Motion agreed to.
David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, Notice of Motion for the Production of Paper No. 27 is acceptable to the government.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that notice of motion No. 27 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
February 4, 1981

[ Text]


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 27-Mr. Domm:
That an order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, notes, transcripts and all other communications exchanged between the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment and senior departmental officials cited by the parliamentary secretary in the House on May 13, 1980, at page 1012 of Hansard.
Motion agreed to.
David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining notices of motions for production of papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 54, I now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of the Whole.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, February 3, consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bill C-54, an act to amend the statute law relating to income tax-Mr. MacEachen-Mr. Blaker in the chair.
The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: The House again in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-54 to amend the statute law relating to income tax. When the committee rose on Tuesday, February 3, 1981, clause 58 of the bill was under consideration and the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood had the floor. 1 might mention that Clause 8 was allowed to stand. Shall Clause 58 carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I ask when it is proposed to return to Clause 8 for the amendment that has been promised.
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Chairman, 1 would have no objection if we were to proceed now with Clause 8 which deals with the Small Business Development Bond. It is up to the House to decide. We may, however, go on and come back later to clause
Income Tax Act
8. It is all the same to me. We can either wait until the end or proceed with it at once.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman may I suggest that we do it now because it is the only tag end before Clause 58. We could then proceed in a more orderly way.
On Clause 8-


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Chairman, as indicated after the oral question period, following an agreement between the parties, the government has agreed to propose the extention of the Small Business Development Bond until December 31 of this year. Throughout the debate, numerous representations have been made by hon. members on both sides of the House for the government to extend the scope of this proposal. On several occasions the Minister of Finance and 1 have discussed this matter with the Minister of State for Small Businesses who was also concerned with the short period of the fiscal year in which the bond could still be negotiated. By granting this extention the government has naturally taken into account these various representations. It has taken into account the particular situation in which we find ourselves and which as also been underlined by hon. members, namely the fact that in a period of high interests rates investments for the development of small businesses are a much more difficult proposition. Considering our fairly high rate of unemployment, at the present time we should extend the bond deadline and enable those job intensive small businesses to meet the challenge of reducing the present high level of unemployment. I would not like to prolong the debate, and 1 am going to ask my colleague the Minister of State for Small Businesses to move amendments to Clause 8, which were agreed upon by all parties.


Mr. Lapointe (Charlevoix) moved:: That Clause 8 of Bill C-54 be amended
(a)	by striking out lines 44 and 45 on page 18 and substituting the following
therefor:
"December I I, 1979 and before 1982,";
(b)	by striking out line 14 on page 19 and substituting the following therefor: "1979 and before 1982";
(c)	by striking out line 21 on page 19 and substituting the following therefor:
"1979 and before 1982 in"; and
(d)	by striking out line 24 on page 19 and substituting the following therefor: "1982, in whole or in part,".


Mr. Andre:: Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief in my remarks. 1 just want to confirm that this amendment arose out of the representations of myself and numerous other hon. members in the House, in particular the hon. member for Mississauga South.

February 4, 1981
Income Tax Act
I underline the arguments of the Minister of State for Small Businesses. At this particular time of very high interest rates, this measure is appropiate. It extends to small businesses the ability to borrow money at interest rates considerably less than would normally be the case for certain investments. Indeed it is a very welcome measure.
Today small business, as it has been for a number of years, is the number one generator of new jobs in the country. Too often we concentrate on the Chryslers and Massey-Fergusons of the world because of their size, and forget that in fact it is the many hundreds and thousands of small businesses which generate jobs, not the glamour operations.
If we are concerned about the unemployed and creating opportunities for them, clearly we must be interested in the welfare of small business in the country and, therefore, interested in promoting this particular feature.
Our first preference would have been for unlimited application of this particular measure. I do not know what the revenue implications are, but I doubt they are very profound. When the government examines the ramifications of this particular provision, I ask it to consider looking at the possibility of entirely eliminating the termination date at some future date. Certainly this provision is very helpful. Perhaps it is not as profound in terms of revenue implications as some other measures, but it is quite profound in terms of the jobs it can create.
In terms of future opportunities for enhancing the small business sector of the economy, the government might look at opening up its application. For example, this provision deals with incorporated small businesses, but I am sure we as members have all received very valid representations on opening it up to unincorporated businesses such as ranches and farms.
Finally I should like to deal with the provision regarding how this money might be spent. At present there are limitations on the types of expenditures for which these funds might be used. I ask the government to examine the possibility of opening up that provision somewhat. I have some confidence in the private sector, especially when it is competing. One thing we know about small business is that there is intense competition. So, the necessity of government to act as a policeman by providing direction is less important when we talk about small business, than perhaps in the large business sector where there is less competition and there is the possibility of size being used to abuse or to take unfair advantage of the marketplace. Then the government has a role to play. But competition is fierce in small business, and the marketplace works where there is fierce competition. Adams Smith's invisible hand is present, therefore there is less necessity for big brother in the form of the government acting as a policeman.
With my suggestions as to possible future improvements, I congratulate the government for the amendment to extend this provision for at least this year, certainly I am in favour of it, as is my party.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to see that the government has agreed to extending the date respecting the Small Business Development Bond. I recognize the role, as did the previous speaker, of small business. Not only does small business provide a great deal of new employment in Canada, but perhaps more important there is a great deal of activity in this sector. If one considers the directions the Canadian economy must take in coming years, one realizes that the creativity, innovation and willingness to try new ideas must be encouraged and nurtured at every opportunity.
I recognize the amendment to extend the provision for the rest of this year is a small step in that direction. Albeit a very small step, it is a positive one. I would be somewhat hesitant to make it open-ended into the future, because I would like to think it is not the appropriate way in which to support small business. Under the circumstances, until the final review is completed by the Minister of State for Small Businesses, it is very much an interim measure, a temporary step. Hopefully we can expect considerable improvements in the ways and means of encouraging, nurturing and supporting the small business sector of Canada in its innovative efforts.
Am I correct in understanding that we are debating only the amendment and that we will have an opportunity to ask other questions regarding the Small Business Development Bond later?


Denis Éthier: Yes.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to add to one or two of the points raised by the hon. member for Calgary Centre. I find it difficult to understand why the regulations would confine this to incorporated companies. Many of our small businesses are doing exactly the same thing. They are hiring people and serving the public. It seems to me there is a very strong argument with respect to legitimate businesses, incorporated or otherwise, receiving the same benefit. This is something which will benefit the entire country. Every one of these businesses which stays in business is good for the country. If they expand then they hire more people, which in a way alleviates some of the unemployment problem and serves business in helping its expansion.
I would also like to say that I attended the Western Stock-growers' Association convention in Banff for one day last week. A number of cattlemen asked me about the Small Business Development Bond program. Some people have the notion that all ranchers and farmers are rich. This is not so. Many of our ranchers and farmers, particularly the younger ones, are having a hard job making ends meet. They, too, deserve every encouragement, since they are in business adding to the buoyancy of the economy. If they do well, the economy benefits.
I would again like to emphasize the point made by the hon. member for Calgary Centre that for farming and ranching businesses, many of which are not incorporated, there should be a definite provision made so that these businesses could
February 4, 1981

include operating expenses, and specifically the purchase of cattle inventory. This is what makes a ranch. If a ranch is not able to secure cattle inventory, if the rancher must pay a high interest rate, it prevents the growth of the ranch. This causes unemployment and other ramifications. So, I would suggest to the minister that when the regulations are being drawn up this point should be remembered, that we endeavour to include the operating expenses of businesses such as small ranches and farms, specifically the purchase of cattle inventory and other such inventories.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to raise ^ couple of other questions while we are discussing this matter, particularly to emphasize the point made by the hon. member for Bow River. It is not often I agree with the hon. member for Bow River on many topics, but on this one I certainly concur 100 per cent. If there is one sector within the Canadian economy to which we must pay a great deal more attention it is the small farmer and the small cattleman,
I am privileged to come from a part of British Columbia which boasts of having some of the largest cattle ranches in Canada. I have some sensitivity to the needs, not so much of the large cattle operations, but of the small cattleman. Certainly in the last couple of weeks a number of cattlemen from my area^and I am talking about the people whose families have been in the area since the 1870s-have shown an interest in taking advantage of this type of program. I would like to lend my support to that of the previous speakers, asking the government to consider making the small farmer and cattleman eligible to take advantage of the Small Business Development Bond program.
1 have two or three questions I would like to raise at this time. When one reads through this clause carefully it becomes evident that there are two beneficiaries of the Small Business Development Bond, the qualifying small business borrowers and, of course, the corporate lender. It would appear, from calculations I have made, that if the loan rate is at half prime plus 2'h per cent or more, this will result in greater benefit accruing to the chartered banks or the lending institutions than to the borrower himself. Would the minister confirm whether or not that is the case? If it is, then should we not be looking at placing a ceiling on the interest rates which can be charged so that we are not making it easier again for Canada's chartered banks to be making a profit? I do not think this is the idea of this particular piece of legislation.


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take up very briefly the points raised by the hon. member for Calgary Centre, by the member for Bow River as well as by the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap whose comments were somewhat inconsistent with his first intervention, namely, to extend to all small businesses without exception, the privileges contained in the Small Business Development Bond and to extend them also to all kinds of investments. In the first place, I am surprised by the statements of the hon. member for Calgary
Income Tax Act
Centre and the member for Bow River who often condemn this government for its careless spending and extremely burdensome budgetary deficit. This government knows that its budget deficit bears heavily on the Canadian taxpayers. It is committed to reducing the deficit, and this is exactly why it proceeds so sparingly with an expenditure like the one involved in the small business expansion bond program. Such a tax credit will apply-because it can actually be very popular-could result in a tax loss that is tantamount to a considerably high expenditure, and the government must consider this.
I think this is why the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap stated in the first part of his comments that this was not the best way of helping small businesses. In this respect, I would like to suggest that the Minister of State for Small Businesses is now conducting a study on the various financing needs of our small businessmen, whether for expansion, for working capital, for coping with their needs during periods of economic recession, etc. The study is under way, and when it is completed the government will come forth with measures that will respond much better to the needs of the small businesses than this type of bond. We may also come up with programs that will better cope with the financing problems experienced by small businesses. Because their scope will be known, they will be much less costly to the Canadian taxpayers than this type of bond.
I have also been asked whether banks will not derive larger benefits than the small businesses themselves from the way the tax credit will be figured out. I have not worked this out myself but, if I am allowed a few seconds, if an honourable member has a very brief comment to make, I would consult with the officials who have studied with the particular method of administering that program and then I could provide an answer more quickly.


Mr. Mayer:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few brief interjections to reinforce what has already been said by the hon. member for Bow River and by the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap about the Small Business Development Bond. 1 would like to emphasize how important it can be to the small, unincorporated businessman and the small farmer.
1 think it is well known that in agriculture the amount of investment per job is greater than in any other segment of the Canadian economy. 1 do not have the exact figures with me but it seems to me, if my memory serves me correctly, that we are talking about $150,000 to $175,000 of investment capital per job in agriculture. This is because of the nature of agriculture. In most cases it is an annual production cycle so that we go through one production cycle per year, whether it be in the cattle business or in grain farming. The farming segment needs capital on a yearly basis, and in some cases on a longer term basis.
I point out that when interest rates fluctuate widely a great deal of uncertainty in the farming community can occur within a year's time. What happens in many cases is that, rather than

February 4, 1981
Income Tax Act
go through the prospect of facing fluctuating interest rates, producers, particularly those in the cattle business, cut back. This move does nothing to help inflation because it is felt on the supply side. One of the proposals which make sense is the extending of the Small Business Development Bond to unincorporated businesses, such as farmers and ranchers. Regardless of whether farmers and ranchers are incorporated, they need large amounts of capital to operate. The amount necessary has increased dramatically over the past few years, and there is every indication that it will continue to increase.
As we become more productive in agriculture, more capital will be needed. It would make sense with regard to the supply side if people were encouraged to be more productive. However, in this instance more money at a lower cost will be necessary. 1 urge the government to extend the Small Business Development Bond to small unincorporated farms, ranches, and other small businesses. The mere fact that farms and ranches require vast amounts of capital to operate is a good indication, if the government is serious about fighting inflation on the supply side, of the need for extending the Small Business Development Bond to unincorporated farms, ranches, and other small businesses.
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Chairman, I should like to remind the hon. member, if we are to situate the problem in a very broad context, that he stressed the need to encourage the production of goods in order to reduce inflationary pressures. It must also be kept in mind in the discussion of the inflation phenomenon that the argument is often made that huge government deficits feed inflation. This means that implementing the suggestion of the hon. member, that is spending more, would lead to an even greater deficit and therefore more inflation. I feel that no phenomenon should be studied singly, no problem solved in isolation. Instead, we must view the over-all economic situation in which we live. I indicated that this government being committed to reducing its deficit, its spending had restricted the application of this costly measure to the most urgent problem in present economic circumstances, that is, to the creation of jobs. That is why this bond applies only with regard to investments in the development of businesses.
As for the matter of interest rates which the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap brought up a few moments ago, the provisions of this bill do not provide for a formula on the basis of which to set interest rates. The businessman who wants to avail himself of this section of the law will have to see the representatives of those institutions that are authorized to participate in such a program and negotiate his rate or shop around for the best rate available, as some will be higher than others, and settle for the one he feels is the most attractive.
In fact, the tax advantages offered by this provision are primarily intended for small businesses because they are the ones we want to help. Of course, lending institutions will also
derive tax benefits, which is one way of encouraging moneylenders to take an active part in handling those bonds. But the prime advantage is not meant to go to lending institutions. The benefits provided for here are meant to encourage small businesses to borrow and invest in their expansion.


Mr. Murta:: Mr. Chairman, very briefly I would like to reinforce the point made by the hon. member for Portage-Marquette with regard to the government giving consideration to extending the Small Business Development Bond to cover unincorporated businesses, including farms. We have rapidly reached the point in time in Canadian agriculture where the Farm Credit Corporation is becoming a secondary vehicle in the lending of money to agriculture. It is probably due to the tremendous amounts of money required in the agricultural industry. The government must be in a position to move in and, at least, guarantee loans made in the traditional way, particularly loans to younger farmers who wish to borrow from banks, credit unions, or caisses populaires.
I know of no other industry like agriculture which is made up of both small and large components all of which need tremendous amounts of capital. The United States is in the process of recognizing this problem. In some states a program in the form of agricultural development revenue bonds has been introduced. I have copies of the proposed bond. For example, the Alabama Agricultural Development Authority is considering this particular bond as a means of raising money in the marketplace to supplement the capital which will be needed in agriculture, without the government becoming heavily involved.
Obviously, the entire concept would not apply in Canada, because of the different tax structure and a number of other differences. Such a concept though may apply in the long term viability of Canadian agriculture. If the minister is interested, I would be happy to send him or his officials copies of the material which I received from Alabama. This material points out that there are methods, other than our traditional method of the Farm Credit Corporation, of providing the necessary amounts of money.
The Farm Credit Corporation literally ran out of money well before the end of its yearly mandate. If agriculture is to survive as a viable, prosperous entity in the 1980s, something must be done. While the minister is correct when he says that there will be an additional increase or draw-down from the federal treasury for small businesses, including those in agriculture, and considering that these people are looking at interest rates at from 19 per cent to 20 per cent, will the minister not consider extending the small business development bond to unincorporated small businesses and particularly unincorporated farms?
1 know of many incorporated farms which are applying for the bond. Provided the tax system of taking half the interest rate offered and adding two percentage points to it favours these businesses, there is no question that the small business development bond will help. In the interim, until the House, or possibly representatives of all parties, working with the minis-
February 4, 1981

ter's department, can come up with new ideas for funding these small businesses, and particularly farmers, the idea 1 have mentioned should be considered. Many small businesses are forced to borrow money at the current exorbitant interest rates and, unless they receive a substantial increase in the price of their commodities, they will not be around this time next year. It is that serious. We are getting to that point in agriculture where credit is probably the greatest management tool agriculture has.


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the comments made by the hon. member for Lisgar and I can assure him that I would be very glad to get the papers he referred to concerning agricultural development revenue bonds, and he can be assured that we would study them. I am sure my colleague the Minister of Agriculture, will also be interested in them. I also agree with him as to the importance of agriculture. I suggest energy is not the only problem in the world today, but food and the production of protein are another serious problem facing mankind. I agree with him that we should take heed of our country's tremendous capacity for protein production. It would be most unfortunate if we failed to make that production available by not providing our farmers with the money they need. So I would appreciate it very much if he could supply us with these documents, and he may be assured that we will give them very close attention.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Chairman, I have a short statement before I pose my question. It is just for clarification. I was not suggesting for a moment that the Small Business Development Bond does not help small business. That is obvious. However, by my calculations when the interest rate goes above 2.5 per cent above half prime, the greater advantage then accrues to the lending institution. Since this bond was primarily designed to support small business, when you look at the interest rates which most banks are charging on the Small Business Development Bond, it is in excess of 2.5 per cent above half prime, which means the banks are the major beneficiaries. I assumed that was not the intent of this legislation. It is simply a statement.
My question is this: as others have indicated, the unincorporated business and a number of other exclusions from this particular clause eliminate most small businesses in Canada from participating in this legislation. Would the minister or his officials be able to agree with my calculations, which would indicate that perhaps nearly 95 per cent of small businesses in Canada are excluded from benefiting from this legislation because of the qualifying clauses? If not 95 per cent, what percentage would the minister say is fair?
Income Tax Act


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Chairman, I will deal first with the latter part of the question. As soon as a business is incorporated and meets the criteria, it becomes eligible. It is claimed that the criteria requirements will eliminate 95 per cent-that is the figure quoted-of the small businesses which might apply for these bonds. That is not consistent with our own estimates or those I obtained when I inquired very briefly from some of the lending institutions which have indicated that they had received a great many applications over the past few weeks and that all the applicants appeared to be eligible.
I suggest, therefore, that to be able to arrive at such figures, one would have to have access to all the applications which have been filed and be able to determine those which have been turned down because of the qualifying clauses in the legislation. I do not think that this would be technically possible at this time, because it would require having all these applications. The estimates we have now seem to indicate that the hon. member's concern is unfounded.
Concerning the interest rates and the profits lending institutions are likely to reap from the businesses which will apply for these bonds, if we take an 18 per cent basic rate and divide it by 2, we get a rate of 9 per cent. The additional 2 per cent rate which the bank would require would raise the interest rate to 11 per cent and that would be shared as follows: 7 per cent to the small business, and 2 per cent to the bank. It goes without saying, then, that there is a net benefit to the small business.
And as I explained earlier, it was quite obvious from the original draft of the Small Business Development Bond that it has never been considered as an incentive designed to encourage financial institutions into lending money, but as a means to allow businesses in need of money to expand without having to labour under an unduly heavy financial burden in these difficult times when interest rates are very high.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Chairman, I have just a couple of brief points. In response to the minister's question a minute ago, I would like to point out what we are doing with high interest rates. We are trying to attack inflation from the demand side. When we get to interest rates at the level they are, I would argue very strongly in terms of agriculture that we affect inflation very adversely on the supply side. The Small Business Development Bond, if it were expanded to include the cattle industry, and I will be specific here, could help us on the supply side by encouraging production. It may cost in the short run, but in the long run, because of the nature of the cattle business, it will help us in a two to three-year period to increase supply and thereby address some of the problems of food price increases.
Let me give you some examples. I have been farming for about 25 years. When I first started selling cattle, they sold for roughly 19 to 20 cents a pound. The interest costs right now to raise an animal to slaughter weight are approximately equal to what cattle were sold for 20 or 25 years ago. In some areas of

February 4, 1981
Income Tax Act
the prairies now it costs as much to buy winter feed for a cow-and 1 made this point in the House here during our all-night debate before Christmas-as it costs to pay interest for its keep for the total year. That will give hon. members an idea of how interest costs can affect what we are doing as far as inflation is concerned on the supply side.
Would the minister seriously consider extending the provisions of the small business development bond to include the purchase of livestock? There is a certain precedent for this. Breeding stock have been eligible for loans under the Farm Improvement Loans Act in the past. If the minister could do this, it would be somewhat in concert with what has been done in the past regarding farm improvement loans. I would urge the minister also to give serious consideration to extending this kind of provision toward the purchase of feeder cattle. Again, as I have tried to explain previously, when there are wide fluctuations in interest rates and a farmer is locked into a production period which does not let him take into account the fluctuations in the short term, it scares the farmer away from committing himself to keeping his lots full because he has to feed them over a period of three, four or six months, during which time interest rates can fluctuate widely.
Perhaps the minister would seriously consider classing breeding stock as a capital good for the purposes of this act, so as to come under the provisions of the small business development bond and, as well, extend the provisions to include feeder cattle. I admit that by doing this it will cost the treasury money in the short run, but I think it would pay off as far as increasing things on the supply side is concerned.
The businesses which benefit the most are the ones not taxable as far as the small business development bond is concerned. In some ways that is something like a tax contract, which 1 think we all agree is a good method of increasing production. Therefore I hope the minister will give some consideration to extending the small business development bond to small and unincorporated businesses. As I said, those which will benefit the most are the ones not in a taxable position. That could help to make them viable, and therefore eligible to pay taxes. This would be of benefit to the treasury down the road. It will not help the government at all as far as collecting taxes is concerned if these kinds of interest rates chase these people out of business. I would appreciate the minister's comments.


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Chairman, as I said a while ago, it would be pleasant to extend the application of that Small Business Development Bond even to cattle breeders. As I said, I am quite aware that if a large quantity of consumer goods are made available to consumers, the inflationary pressures will be reduced. I understand that quite well.
However, I would rather discuss the matter in relation to our agricultural programs rather than taxation. 1 indicated that the government was reluctant to extend that small business bond because of the substantial cost of that measure, and 1 think that in the present economic conditions, every investment dollar counts. That is why we had regretfully to restrict its application to the very limited field contained in the present provisions of the bill.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Chairman, 1 have one last statement for the minister. Just so there will be no illusion created that is unreasonable, the word has gone out across the country that the Small Business Development Bond is indeed an answer for small business financing, or one of a number of answers. The point I want to make is that because of the number of qualifications, limitations or exclusions in the legislation, most small businesses in Canada do not have access to this legislation. I want to expand on that.
For example, we heard a great deal this afternoon about unincorporated small businesses. Depending on whose statistics and what numbers we use, if I averaged out accurately between the numbers usually available, we are talking about 930,000 active small businesses in Canada, of which 625,000 are unincorporated. That means they do not qualify for the small business development bond.
In addition, the Small Business Development Bond cannot be used for working capital. We all recognize that is where the demand is, working capital for the very small entrepreneur. The bond cannot be used to lease or rent equipment, or to buy second-hand equipment. By the time you tally up all these qualifications and limitations, you find there are actually few small businessmen who can benefit from this. I want to make that point so we do not feel this is the saviour of small business financing. We should have no illusions along that line.
1 want to mention for the benefit of my colleagues to my right that when the hon. member for St. John's West brought in the concept of the Small Business Development Bond some months ago, which did not get very far, for an obvious reason, far fewer restrictions were actually included. This means that a great many more small businesses would have benefited. While the minister said today it is still open ended and it is therefore difficult at this point to say what it will cost, 1 suppose when the costs of the program were looked into and found to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars, these qualifications were considered necessary.
I want to leave one thought with the minister, and that is the difference between government spending, which we all agree must be curtailed as much as possible, and government investment. I suggest the money being spent by the government on this program for small business is probably one of the best investments we could be making. When you consider the way our money is distributed through various segments, programs and projects, many of dubious value when it comes to creating meaningful employment, I feel that the small business development bond is one of the more positive approaches. Recognizing its limitations and so on, we look forward to more legislation which will include improvements for the small business community in the next few months.
February 4, 1981


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few comments about the Small Business Development Bond which was introduced by the Clark government. It was a step in the right direction, and we are glad this government is pursuing it.
This bond is not the total answer. We still have the problem of high interest rates, which are a very serious concern to small businesses and home owners. What bothers me is that I do not think the government is all that concerned about how high interest rates affect small business.
I wish to go back to the very first order of business in the last Parliament. The Liberal industry, trade and commerce critic, the hon. member for Windsor West, presented a motion calling for the establishment of an all-party committee to deal with interest rates. We in the Conservative Party agreed to that motion because we were concerned and wanted to do something about high interest rates. Our leader authorized the acceptance of that motion, and a committee was established to deal with the high interest rate problem.
The committee met for a couple of months. 1 have gone over the minutes of the 20 to 25 meetings. They contained a lot of worth-while information. The committee intended to call more witnesses. It was to have presented an interim report at the end of December, 1979, which would have assisted the government of the day to see what could be done about high interest rates and assisting small businesses and home owners. Of course we were defeated, and nothing further was done regarding the work of that committee.
I find it rather strange that this government has not reestablished that committee to deal with this serious problem. A number of times we presented similar motions, asking why the government would not reappoint that committee. If the government was so concerned in 1979 about interest rates and wanted an all-party committee to deal with the problem, why will it not reappoint that committee which could make proposals to assist small business?
I find it strange that government ministers now say "no" to our motions when we said "yes" to theirs. The work of that committee has now gone down the drain. Their proposal for a Small Business Development Bond is only a partial answer. I ask the minister why the committee was not re-established to deal with this problem and to hear the rest of the witnesses. It could come up with a firm solution rather than a partial solution to the interest rate problem.
There is talk about interest rates going as high as 25 per cent. What will that do to small business in this country? This Small Business Development Bond program will not save them. 1 ask the minister to advise why the government will not reappoint that committee which it wanted so badly when it was in opposition.
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member did indicate that when his party was in power it had to face very high interest rates and that one of the solutions considered was for an all party committee to examine possible ways to solve the
Income Tax Act
issue of rising interest rates. He did state that a two-month study was made but apparently to no avail since in the wake of this study we did not witness a drastic drop in the interest rates. My opinion is that if you study the issue of rising interest rates in our country you have to conclude that it is not an isolated phenomenon taking place only in Canada but one which pervades not only the North American economy but economies of all industrialized notions. We are now facing difficult times. Inflation puts a constant pressure on the economy which reacts in various ways and the interest rates are only one of the reactions to these inflationary pressures. The position of this government has always been that if we truly want to return to lower and more sensible interest rates we must let all economic mechanisms interact in order to beat these inflationary pressures and as soon as there appears to be a trend toward a lower inflation rate, the interest rates will automatically readjust themselves downwards.
As I said earlier, it is not a phenomenon that can be singled out and treated in an isolated manner, it is a phenomenon that must be situated in the context of other macroeconomic phenomena, in the context of the economic trends prevailing in North America and other industrialized countries. Therefore I do not think that any single simple remedy will solve such a complex issue.


A. Daniel McKenzie: I have just one brief comment, Mr. Chairman. The minister said it was our proposal to establish a committee. It was not our proposal. We accepted their motion and there was mutual agreement in the House. The minister also said that no concrete results came from the meetings of the committee. Of course there were no concrete results because the committee did not have a chance to file its interim report. There were about a dozen more witnesses to be heard from, and another three or four months of work. Had that work all been completed I am sure there would have been some concrete results.
I would ask the minister and his officials to have a look at those minutes to see what they can find out. He might just reconsider his position in respect of reappointing that committee, because it really was doing a lot of good work.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Denis Éthier: Prior to matters relating to Clause 8 the committee had been considering Clause 58. Shall Clause 58 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 58 agreed to.
Clauses 59 to 63 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 64-
6896

February 4, 1981
Income Tax Act


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Chairman, I have one short question I should like to raise regarding clause 64. The act currently provides tables for income up to $24,000. Could the minister indicate to the House what the new prescribed amount will be?


Pierre Bussières: For 1980 the new amount is set at $30,000.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Chairman, 1 think on this particular clause one has to make the point that these excessive rates of withholding could certainly affect people on low income. An eventual tax refund does very little for those people to help pay their day to day requirements, providing food, clothing, energy costs and so on. We must never lose sight of the fact that, while tax refunds are fine, it is very difficult these days for many people to get by on a day to day, week to week basis, and this will do very little to assist them.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 65 to 69 inclusive agreed to.
Denis Éthier: Is the hon. member rising on Clause 70?


Nelson Andrew Riis: I rise on Clause 68.


Denis Éthier: As a courtesy I would require the consent of the House to revert to Clause 68. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On Clause 68-


Nelson Andrew Riis: I would thank my colleagues for agreeing to forgive me when I was a little slow off the mark. I have a couple of questions I should like to raise with the minister.
The revenue from corporate taxes now comprises only 10.3 per cent of federal revenue compared to 23 per cent in 1950. Does the government feel corporations paid their fair share of taxes in 1980?
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Chairman, I will not question the figure put forth by the hon. member. It must be accurate though I cannot confirm that. The gist of his question is whether the government feels that big companies, commercial corporations, financial firms and others are paying their fair share of the taxes collected in Canada. It is both relatively easy and still rather difficult to answer that question. I can say without any hesitation that corporations account for a fair share of the government's revenues. I am positive about that.
One might be led to think otherwise by comparing percentages because that would give us a far from accurate idea of the situation. In fact one must take into account, above all other things, the generated income and the role played by businesses in our society. We have discussed that at some length during this debate and we have just been discussing that again for
nearly an hour and a half, Mr. Chairman, when we were dealing with the Small Business Development Bond. Corporations account for a fair share of the government revenues and they also account to a large extent for the health of our economy. We all know that whenever there are problems within the economy or whenever the unemployment rate is high, for instance, we immediately look for measures-as we have just done for small businesses-which are likely to encourage businesses to invest money in order to improve the situation, create jobs and help Canadians to live better.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House become cautious about our admiration for the government when we find that revenue from corporate taxation, which was 23 per cent in 1950, was 10.3 per cent in 1980. I realize this is a 5 per cent step in the right direction, and that raises my next question, and perhaps I should ask two. Why is this being proposed only to the end of 1981, if I understand it correctly? A study within the finance department in 1970 indicated that the average rate of corporation taxation was only 18 per cent. Has the minister's department estimated the impact of the surcharge on this amount?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Chairman, as to the additional amount to be generated, the answer is relatively simple, since we are dealing with a 5 per cent surcharge, which means that the additional revenue will represent 5 per cent of the revenue from corporate taxation. On pages 80 and 81 of the budget papers published with the last budget, one finds that for 1980-81, corporate taxes account for 22 per cent of federal revenue. This may put into perspective the figures quoted by the hon. member, indeed, the figures I have come from official documents.
Clause 68 agreed to.
On Clause 70-


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that Subclause 70(6) of Bill C-54 be amended (a) by striking out lines 33 and 34 on page 140 and substituting the following therefor:
each of which is the corporation's share of the income (determined in accordance with subdivision j) of the partnership for a fiscal period of the partnership ending in or coinciding with the year from an;
(b) by striking out line 12 on page 141 and substituting the following therefor:
respect of the group if the reference therein to the "corporation's income" were read as a reference to "the corporation's share of the income (determined in accordance with subdivision j)" and the reference therein to "the corporation's loss" were read as a reference to "the corporation's share of the loss (determined in accordance with subdivision j)"; and
February 4, 1981

(c) by striking out lines 42 and 43 on page 141 and substituting the following therefor:
amounts each of which is the share of the income or loss (determined in accordance with subdivision j) of a person who.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Chairman, 1 must admit that I do not really understand the nature of the amendment. Perhaps as a result of the amendment my question has been answered. The amendment to clause 70 provides that a small business deduction will still be allowed where the shares of a small business are held by a venture capital corporation. Will this particular move not encourage the takeover of small independent businesses by venture capital corporations simply needing tax deductions?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Chairman, in the case of corporations such as SODEQs whose purpose is to provide capital for businesses, I believe that existing provincial statutes governing these corporations specify that the purpose of these institutions is not to take over corporations.
To a certain extent, the provision we are studying in clause 70 will favour or, if you will, allow diversification in the investments of the corporation, but it will not encourage takeovers as such.
The amendment ensures that the $150,000 ceiling is shared by all members in all cases where the business is operated through a corporation. In addition, such sharing of the ceiling among the various members will be prorated according to the participation in corporate income but not necessarily as a consequence since if I refer to SODEQs, for instance, those corporations are not set up to take control of small businesses but rather to provide capital to help them grow.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 70, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 71 agreed to.
On Clause 72 -
Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Chairman, 1 wonder if I could make one quick suggestion. When ministers are moving amendments, if they could give us in a few words the effect of the amendments, l think it would save us a lot of time.
I would like to raise a point in connection with Clause 72. During the debate on clause 1 1 dealt with deemed income. 1 would like to move an amendment-I am not going to, but 1 would like to-stating that deemed income, wherever it is applicable to income taxes, shall be deleted from the act. I know that would take a lot of time, and if the government did not support it it would go down to defeat, so 1 will not follow that course. However, I think I pointed out the other night the dangers involved with deemed income. I ask the minister not to use this in the agricultural or business fields unless there is a very, very definite reason for doing so.
Income Tax Act
1 think deemed income is a totalitarian concept, and for some bureaucrat, who perhaps has no experience with a particular type of business at all, to deem how much income there is and not to allow expenses to be deemed, is really something which really frustrates our people.
The Minister of National Revenue told me in a letter that his department would use this very sparingly. I would like to see it not used at all. I think it should be watched very carefully this year so that the next time this act comes before the House we might be able to get rid of this entirely and wipe it out of the act.


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Chairman, 1 have a very brief comment. Certainly, we would be in a serious situation were we to delete every instance of the term "deemed" in the Income Tax Act. I am grateful that the hon. member did not introduce his amendment and so spared us very serious complications. However, I listened and the officials here listened very closely to the speech made the other night by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor). He put forward special cases. He did so with his usual eloquence that reflects his concern with the day to day problems we face in our capacity as Members of Parliament. This is more or less the nightmare of all people when confronted with income tax.
I suggest everyone went through these difficulties when receiving a rather high assessment notice without knowing how or why. Because I would think everybody, come fiscal year end, tries to pay income tax as honestly as possible. When one receives such an assessment notice, one wonders what happened, one does not feel very easy in the intricacies, the nooks and crannies not of the National Revenue building but the Income Tax Act itself. I understand the hon. member. He referred to farmers for instance. Our farms have become large businesses. Unfortunately, farmers are not trained as accountants or income tax experts, and this can create problems when something appears to be a mystery in the Income Tax Act. His concerns are well known, they were listened to very closely and he may rest assured that the people responsible for drafting, formulating our tax legislation, will take very special care to consider his representations.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Chairman, I will speak very briefly. I think the hon. member for Bow River has raised a very fundamentally important question which perhaps should be discussed. I cannot recollect a discussion in my years here having to do with the Income Tax Act and the way in which it is enforced.
In many of its aspects the enforcement provisions of the Income Tax Act are more suited to a totalitarian state than to a democracy. Some of them are quite literally Gestapo-like, such as the one that permits the seizure of records. It really is a case of "guilty until proven innocent." It has always struck me as being rather hypocritical on the part of some of our

February 4, 1981
Income Tax Act
guardians of public morality that they become so incredibly verbose and articulate when speaking of freedoms, justice, the criminal laws of this country, the way the courts function, the way information is available, censorship and so on, and yet they tolerate these enforcement provisions in the Income Tax Act.
We have all had experience with, or know of cases in our constituencies, where people have been victims of the enforcement provisions in the Income Tax Act. Some of the actions of enthusiastic tax collectors, backed by these provisions, are downright horrendous. The hon. member for Bow River told us of the poor farmer who was harassed for years by officials. Many of us who come from Alberta are regular readers of the writings of C. V. Meyers who was forced into exile in Spokane, Washington, because of the actions of the tax collector. A few years ago a businessman in Thunder Bay was so harassed by the tax collectors that he left the country. It would be appropriate for us to look into these matters and the danger of allowing them to happen. They are an invitation to sneakiness, if you will.
The enforcement provisions in the bill, taken to their illogical extension by overzealous bureaucrats from time to time, create a real contempt in the taxpayer. It is a dangerous situation when the tax collector and the taxpayer become adversaries in the real sense of the word, with one trying to outmanoeuvre the other and we are perilously close to that situation in this country.
Just recently a chartered accountant told me that he is being asked by clients to do things which, if he had suggested them five or ten years ago, would have led to the client firing him because such things were regarded as unscrupulous. There has been that kind of change in our morality. Granted some of it rises from the level of taxation but some of it is also as a result of the enforcement provisions in the Income Tax Act.
The hon. member for Bow River spoke of a specific provision that allows an official, to deem you to be in a certain position, and leaves it up to you to prove that you are, instead, a victim. That is contrary to our fundamental philosophy of justice.
I should like to close with an anecdote about an oil company executive who was being reassessed. The officials from the Department of National Revenue, armed with the authority of the act, seized his records. Among them were the draws he had written up for the oilmen's golf tournament which was to take place in a few days. Fie asked to have them back but there was no provision in the act that allowed them to be returned without a court order. We can never write a law that would guard against such silliness, but it is just as silly to have a law that allows such bureaucratic behaviour with immunity.
The matter raised by the hon. member for Bow River should be considered when the draftsmen examine this bill.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Chairman, 1 should like to emphasize the points made by the hon. member for Calgary Centre and the hon. member for Bow River about deemed income. I appreciate receiving a note on this subject from the parliamentary secretary this afternoon.
It is one thing for the department to have authority to assess tax on deemed income retroactively and for the taxpayer to have to defend himself, but if he cannot have some offsetting advantage in the way of deemed expense, then the adversarial system breaks down. It cannot operate if all the power is on one side.
I agree with the hon. member for Bow River when he says we know that we will not be able to have Clause 69 changed or thrown out, but that any reassessments that will be carried out concerning corporations dealing within arm's length be suspended for a year or, if the department reassesses on a retroactive basis, it should be done on an equal basis, so that if there is deemed income for an individual, that individual's corporation mut be allowed to have a deemed expense so that there can be an offsetting expense to claim as a deduction against tax. Otherwise it is conceivable that people who are even in low income brackets might reach the point of being taxed at over 100 per cent. I do not think that is the intent of the act.
If such interpretations can be put on the act I hope the tax department will clarify the matter once and for all.
The hon. member for Calgary Centre spoke of the adversarial system. I know cases of three or four officials of the tax department moving into a small community to do a reassessment. Word quickly spreads that such and such a person is being reassessed. This brings a lot of moral pressure upon him to pay the tax even though he may be quite sure that he is not liable. But in a small community a stigma attaches when three or four people from the Department of National Revenue show up to reassess him. It seems to be taken for granted that he is doing something wrong. The government has awesome powers with its bureaucracy and it does not have to justify the money it spends to collect tax. On the other hand, the individual taxpayer has to defend himself against that power of government, and that is where the adversarial system breaks down. It literally becomes the tyranny of the government on one side with nothing on the other side as a counterbalance. I urge the minister to take these concerns into consideration.


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Chairman, 1 would like to comment very briefly on what has been said. First of all, I believe that we must remember that our income tax system is based on a voluntary statement of our income, in other words, we receive a form to fill out on which we must state our income. I believe that this is the main principle. It is always easy to point out specific cases involving some intricacies. 1 can recall in my own experience as a Member of Parliament the case of people coming to see me to complain about harassment on the part of Department of National Revenue officials, cases where I tilted at windmills, where I fought to protect one of my constituents, and in so doing realized that this constituent had seriously neglected to declare part of his income and that the official of the National Revenue Department was quite right in cracking
February 4, 1981

down on him, because if someone does not pay his taxes, you and 1 will have to pay them. If there is a shortage of revenues because someone has deliberately cheated on his income tax, as a result all of us will have to pay higher taxes.
Obviously, it is always possible to find specific cases where an official of the Department of National Revenue has overreacted. No one is perfect, either in the Department of National Revenue, the Department of Finance or any other department. There can be cases of abuse. I can see by the look on his face that Mr. Short is getting cross with me. Obviously, the Taxation Division is just about perfect, but perfection is quite rare! However, what we must all remember is that our taxation system is based on the willingness of individual taxpayers to make a voluntary statement of all their income.
Complications arise when someone forgets or neglects to show part of his income. It is also quite obvious that the more complexity to a business or the more sources of income, the more chances there are for a taxpayer to forget something and for the officials of Revenue Canada to discover these mistakes and send out notices. 1 do not question the fact that there can be regrettable cases, but I believe that, as a general rule, if everyone would observe the spirit of the Income Tax Act and make a complete statement without forgetting or neglecting anything, like we used to do when we went to confession, such problems would not occur.
OO)


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Chairman, I should like very briefly to ask the minister a specific question which may not be within his jurisdiction. The other night I dealt with the possibility of the department proceeding with some reassessment of income tax on the basis of deeming income to an individual. 1 do not want to get into the details because the minister understands the situation. If there is to be some reassessment based on deemed income, can the minister assure us that individuals will be allowed to go back and amend their tax returns, so that there will be some deemed expense on the other side, or an offsetting expense, to cover it?
I know of individuals who incorporated on the basis of reasons other than avoiding taxation. They did it for the purposes of estate planning, dividing up assets among family members or whatever; they did not incorporate to avoid taxes. But when they are subjected to a reassessment only on the basis of deemed income, rather than their corporations being allowed a deemed expense, it seems to be a very serious breach of what the hon. member for Calgary Centre referred to, and I would like some assurance that there will be equality on each side in so far as income and expenses are concerned. It would go a long way toward alleviating our concerns about Section 69 of the Income Tax Act.


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Chairman, this comes under the authority of my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, but I
Income Tax Act
am told that when it is not a case of tax evasion, the current practice is to allow amendments to the tax return that was submitted earlier. I would suggest that the hon. member get in touch with my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, to indicate his concerns. But my information is that the current practice is to allow that procedure which the hon. member mentioned except, of course, in obvious cases of fraud or evasion.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Chairman, after listening with interest to the remarks of previous speakers, I am moved to make a comment regarding the taxation system and the fact that one member will stand and indicate how the tax people are harassing good citizens and another member will indicate that our good citizens are misleading the tax department, and so on. One must ask where we are moving in a country which has, as its basis, a voluntary declaration taxation system, as the minister indicated, which assumes that people are honest and straightforward. It is the basic philosophy behind the collection of taxes.
In the next couple of months it will become virtually a national preoccupation of many Canadians to beat the tax man and to take advantage of every conceivable loophole. To fill out a simple tax form now requires the assistance of an accountant. Every year we add to the sections of the Income Tax Act, which makes it somewhat more complicated. Perhaps some loopholes are closed, but often in closing those loopholes others are opened up. People involved in the financial world today, particularly when it comes to accounting and taxation, are becoming very puzzled. The result is that a small but ever-increasing army of bureaucrats monitor the abuses of people in the system; it challenges these people even more.
What is at the root of this almost misdirection or this preoccupation with avoiding taxes? It must be said that the feeling of many Canadians is that the tax system is unjust. Many Canadians do not pay their fair share, while others bear the burden. We would be hardpressed if we spoke from our hearts in this chamber this afternoon and said that that is not the case.
When I tour the plants in my riding, particularly at this time of year, I find people are complaining about the taxes they will pay to the federal government. They are anxious to "beat the system". Perhaps one of the reasons for this is how their taxes are being spent and the feeling that the best use is not always being made of their taxes. This leads to more willingness to abuse the system.
I should like to leave that point by indicating that this willingness is caused by what appears to be a very unjust system which favours some groups in society at the expense of others, and by the recognition that one's tax money is not always going in what could be classed as a beneficiary direction. The end result is that it begins to stagger the mind. How many revisions can there be to the Income Tax Act? How thick can that document get before the entire system breaks down?

February 4, 1981
Income Tax Act
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Chairman, 1 found the hon. member's comments most interesting. I think he raises a very serious problem of ethics in society. Obviously, people have to be satisfied that the tax system seeks to be as equitable as possible, and I think this is a government concern. If we look, for instance, at the budget speech delivered by the Minister of Finance on October 28, 1980, it states, on page 15, and I quote:

We will only maintain a good tax system, however, if we keep on looking for ways to make it better. I am particularly concerned to ensure that the tax system is fair and is seen to be fair.

And it goes on. I think the hon. member raises an important point. People must be able to see the inherent fairness of the tax system. It is important and a concern which was indicated in the budget. The hon. member also raised the question of the use of the taxes paid by the taxpayers. That is also another very important aspect to consider. If, as a citizen, I get the impression that my government is wasting my tax dollars, I will start wondering and automatically I will think that I am paying too much tax and I will therefore conclude that there is no way out because they take the taxpayers' money and spend it foolishly.
I think it becomes increasingly important to inform people concerning the various government programs. However, a government which tells the public what the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is doing in a given area, how many dollars the Department of National Health and Welfare is contributing to the health fund of a province, is always running the risk of being accused of resorting to propaganda, even partisan propaganda. 1 do not think it is right to say that.
I think governments should do more to inform the taxpayers about the use that is made of public funds, precisely to meet the objective mentioned, namely, let people know how their money is spent, so that they may go on trusting the taxation system, the way their money is spent and have a more moral conduct and stricter ethics when it comes to filing their income tax returns. I agree completely with what the hon. member has said.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 73-
Charles Lapointe: That Subclause 73(1) of Bill C-54 be amended
(a)	by striking out lines 3 to 7 on page 147 and substituting the following
therefor:
"the end of paragraph (c) thereof and by adding immediately after paragraph (d) thereof, the following paragraphs:"
(b)	by striking out line 13 and substituting the following therefor:
"tion 13(7.1), and
(d.2) an amount equal to 50 per cent of the aggregate of all amounts each of which is the capital cost to him of certified property acquired by him in any of the 5 immediately preceding taxation years, determined without reference to subsection 13(7.1)"


Stanley Howard Knowles: Explain!


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I do not want to prevent the hon. member who has just risen from speaking, but it has been indicated earlier. The number of copies of the amendment is limited. Perhaps I could briefly explain the amendment.
The amendment, like the clause, deals with the 50 per cent investment tax credit, and this technical amendment is an improvement which allows the investment tax credits to be aggregated during the five following years and deducted completely or in part from the taxes which become payable. This is a technical amendment which makes the full amount of the investment tax credit on certified property available to the taxpayer.


Mr. Murphy:: Mr. Chairman, the New Democratic Party has some real concerns when the government introduces this type of motion. It is our concern that when you switch from direct grants to tax breaks you are really not hitting the target at which you might be aiming. For one thing there is no proof that the organizations or corporations receiving these tax breaks really need them in order to develop in a particular region of the country. One of the problems we face in this vein is that the allowance became effective October 28, the night of the budget speech. If it were really an incentive to bring in corporations to some of the depressed areas of Canada then I believe it is something which should come into effect six, eight or 12 months down the road.
In fact what happened is that the companies which had already decided to build in a certain area were actually building on the night of the budget. All of a sudden they get a tax loophole which will enable them to gain a fair amount of money through tax savings, which they had not planned on.
Second, there is an area of concern related to the fact that there is no proof these corporations actually need the money. Any organization which fits the criteria, as specified, will receive the advantages of this tax rip-off. 1 am concerned that this program was not really being undertaken for industrial development, although 1 think some of the people behind it have good motives. In fact, though, it will end up as a tax rip-off.
1 am also concerned that by using the corporate tax allowance rather than the method of direct grants, as is done under RDIA, then it gets away from public scrutiny. At the present time, if a grant is given there is a public announcement by the minister or departmental official who gets in front of the
February 4, 1981

media showing off the cheque. But under this program the taxpayers of Canada will not know what is happening.
If the real goal is to develop more jobs in the depressed areas and to create more economic development, then I would like to ask the minister why the government did not increase the funding of the RD1A instead of creating this tax rip-off.
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat surprised by the strong language used by the hon. member. I do not think this legislation deserves the words he used. Obviously, the merits of various provisions, particularly those dealing with tax credits, can be discussed at length. The hon. member even went as far as to relate the concept of tax credit to that of tax evasion. I would not go that far. There are several schools of thought. Many people find that subsidies paid directly to this kind of businesses are more advisable because it is easier to determine the aim and scope of such subsidies, while others believe it is better to use tax credits because, according to them, they are less costly to administer, there are fewer forms to be completed, and so on. So, I believe there are several schools of thought. It may be questionable, but I think there are pros and cons. This provision designed to grant a tax credit to those businesses which plan to invest in specific areas is an important measure, in my view. It will enable some businesses to get started in those areas. First of all, it is very generous. I agree with the hon. member that, being very generous, it will enable some businesses to get started in areas where they would never have gone without the assistance of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, or even other federal or provincial programs available.
1 know several of these regions, for instance the Lower St. Lawrence and the Gaspe peninsula to which this provision will apply. Without such a generous assistance and even with it, 1 am not sure too many businesses will go and invest in these areas and that unemployment rates in the Gaspe peninsula will go down from 25 per cent to 10 per cent overnight, as the hon. member for Rimouski has indicated. I suggest that even with such a generous provision, we will not promote huge investments in these remote regions and improve job opportunities as well as the economic situation. I think that in a philosophical discussion on the nature of this measure, considering other programs in some respects, I might agree with the hon. member. However, we must always consider the specific situation and circumstances under which this provision was made. When applied, this generous provision is totally justified and, as I said earlier, I am not sure it will generate enough jobs to improve the social fabric in affected areas.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Chairman, if it is agreeable to you what I would like to do now is go through a number of different points. I hope the minister will have a chance to reply to them.
Income Tax Act
He accused me of violence in my original presentation. I really do not think that is the situation. I am expressing a concern of our party, which is also a concern of a number of Canadians with regard to this particular measure. I will give some reasons for my concern.
The present Regional Development Incentives Act is biased toward large corporations. This measure will only accelerate that bias. The deputy minister of regional economic expansion provided me with some figures last year which indicate the type of problem to which I have referred. For the fiscal year 1979-80, $21.5 million under the RDIA went to what he called small corporations or organizations, which produced 4,680 jobs. I asked the deputy minister what large corporations received. He indicated that large corporations received $72.3 million and created 4,690 jobs. In other words, for another $51 million of Canadian taxpayers' money, ten more jobs were created.
I am aware of the argument that large corporations may create more jobs in the long term. However, I agree with the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap when he says that small businesses can create just as many jobs down the road. The only figures which we can rely upon are those which indicate what was produced. I am worried about the present RDIA and that the criteria used under the RDIA were used in the formulation of this tax measure as well.
We are concerned about whether the government knows what it is doing. Does the minister have an estimate of the number of jobs which will be created by this program and of the cost of the program to the taxpayers? In light of the information which I just gave to the minister on how the money under the present RDIA is being distributed, does the minister know how much money will go to large corporations and how much will go to small corporations? If the government is prepared to go forward with this program, we hope that it has these estimates.
I am also concerned about the fact that this particular clause was formulated with the assistance of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Does this mean that in future this will be the road taken by DREE, or can the government guarantee that there will be no cut in the funding by that particular department? I am concerned for companies such as SYSCO which need money but which do not qualify for money under this proposed program. When these companies need government assistance and that assistance cannot be provided through other programs, what will happen?
We foresee other problems with regard to this program. Although the map provided designates large parts of the country as being eligible under the program, if one looks at the criteria for a project to qualify, one will find that large portions of the areas designated do not benefit from the

February 4, 1981
Income Tax Act
program. For example, projects in fishing and logging are excluded in certain areas. If these basic resource industries are excluded in a region where they are the major economic input, how will that region benefit from the program?
I wrote a letter to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion with regard to this program. He said in his reply that the DREE officials in Winnipeg had informed him that only Fire firms in the Churchill constituency had received development incentives since 1969. This fact, he said, supported my point that the criteria are too strict for many northern residents. The area of the province which is designated under this program is the northern region. In order to qualify for this program one must meet the criteria of the RDIA, which has given only five corporations in my riding any money at all, and the amounts given were very small. Perhaps the minister could answer those questions.


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Chairman, first I would like to reassure the hon. member by saying that it is not at all a new way for the government to promote regional economic development. 1 think that the basic objectives of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion remain unchanged and still represent government philosophy.
I find the odd contradiction in the remarks of the hon. member. To begin with, he is afraid that the measure will turn out to be a financial bottomless pit and he says that major companies will stand to benefit, as in the case of other government programs. According to him, a glance at the map is enough to be convinced that a large part of the country will be eligible under this measure. But then he adds that, for instance, it does not apply to forest or mineral resources, etc. I would like to indicate to him that certain investment sectors are ruled out precisely because in such regions those investment sectors fall within the investment field of large companies. As an example, mineral or forest resources seldom require very enticing incentives for investors. What we do want, however, is that at Causapscal, Saint-Charles-de-Caplan or Grande-Entree in the Magdalen Islands, we can have small businesses benefit from a generous tax credit to create local employment. For instance, we do not necessarily want to offer very generous tax credits to a large forest company which might be anxious to set up shop in the Matapedia valley. That is not the purpose of the measure and that explains the restriction. 1 hope this will allay the fears of the hon. member who does not want this to turn into a tax loophole or a financial bottomless pit.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Would the minister answer my specific question with regard to estimates on the number of jobs which will be created, where these jobs will be created, and the cost of the program?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Chairman, it is difficult to say how many jobs will be created with this investment tax credit, because we do not know how many applications will be received, of what type they will be, from what kind of businesses, and what they do. So it is hard to say until the program has been put to the test and implemented for a while, just where, in what regions it will create so many jobs, cost so much, judging by the number of applications, and so on. Unfortunately we cannot provide figures until the program has been tested for a while.
[ English ]


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak on specific problems which concern my constituency. Earlier I mentioned that the only part of Manitoba included in this particular program was the northern area. The designated boundaries are almost the same boundaries which exist for the federal Churchill constituency. The one exception is the city of Thompson. This exclusion creates a problem with regard to industrial development under the criteria mentioned earlier. If there are to be any jobs created from this program in the north, they will probably be created in the larger communities. Thompson is the largest community in the north.
We have high unemployment in northern Manitoba among both the white and the native communities. We have a lot of one-industry towns in the north, but because the criteria the government settled on exclude the community of Thompson, the community where the development will most likely take place, the program in itself will probably not benefit the north.
My question for the minister is this: what process will be used to change the areas of the country that are designated? It is not set out in the act. What process can be used to change those areas?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Chairman, throughout the debate, various members-for instance our own member for Rimouski-Temiscouata and the hon. member himself-have questioned this dividing into regions and especially the fact that certain cities have been excluded. The hon. member spoke of his own town of Thompson. The hon. member for Rimouski-Temis-couata a few days ago mentioned Rimouski and another member intervened on behalf of another town. I would like to indicate that regulation provides that the governor in council on the recommendation of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion may, on reasonable grounds, recommend certain changes within this general category as to areas that could qualify. But 1 would also like to indicate that the stronger, more prosperous and populous a city is, the more chances it has of attracting and generating investment.
February 4, 1981


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Chairman, the government quite often uses figures for different types of programs. It talks about solid communities and all the rest of it. The point is, however, Thompson is excluded. The minister, on request from myself and on request from the city council of Thompson, has denied any change in his plans. He has denied Thompson the right to benefit from this program. But I would point out to the minister that Thompson's population has decreased by 5,000 in the last three years. It is not a solid economic community at this time. Inco still operates there, but at a much reduced rate. The government asks what the unemployment figures are for the city of Thompson. What is the average income in Thompson? Yes, salaries are high; unemployment is low. But the government has not looked at what has happened in that community over the last couple of years.
That brings me to my last comment, that what is happening with RDIA, what is happening with this tax incentive program, what is happening with a lot of other programs which are provided by the federal government, is basically ad hock-ery. We have a program here and a program there. We have a program which will suit some native people and we have another program to suit other groups. We have all sorts of programs. But my constituency office receives requests from many different groups who would like to benefit from regional economic expansion and from industry, trade and commerce. They would like to benefit also from this smorgasbord of government programs.
When 1 checked with the DREE office, the answer given was: "No, you do not qualify." If you check with the Minister of Employment and Immigration, he says "No, you do not qualify." That is the problem with this government. The Minister of Employment and Immigration, after this tax incentive was announced, ran to the press in northern Manitoba and said, "You are all going to benefit". Yet the minister of DREE points out that only five grants have been given to northern Manitoba in the last 11 years. And the minister who thinks he is somehow responsible for all of Manitoba thinks it is a great boom for the north. He really does not know.
The problem, of course, is that the government does not know what it is doing half of the time. The minister has just told us that he does not know how this program will be received. He does not know whether it will bring a lot of jobs. All we hear is, "We do not know this. We do not know that." I can understand that. I don't think anyone or any party is perfect, whether it be our party, the minister's party, or any other party. But 1 am concerned about the real lack of planning by the government.
The government does have a smorgasbord approach to development. The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion prefers to call each of these smorgasbord programs another arrow in his arsenal. What it means is a hit and miss situation. You might have an arrow for this or that. I can tell you that some of the native people in my constituency have an arrow for you.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Income Tax Act
Clause 73, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 74 agreed to.
On Clause 75-
Mr. McKinnon:: Mr. Chairman, I am not absolutely certain this intervention should be on Clause 75. In a bill of 225 pages it is hard for someone who is not a tax lawyer to find his way around it.
My question deals with deducting tax at source for commissioned salesmen, with particular reference to those who may have accepted the blandishments of the government and gone into MURB or oil drilling deferral schemes. If you take a commissioned salesman, for example, we all know his difficulty of the ups and downs of monthly income. If he has his tax deducted at source, he may have one large deduction and then have several dry months. He may find himself in difficulty because he has sent his money into the government. However, the situation gets even worse if he has invested in a MURB or in an oil drilling deferral scheme. In that case he has to pay taxes on a monthly basis. Say he pays $60,000 in taxes a year, so he pays $5,000 each month. But his MURB and his deferral plan will bring back a fair proportion of that to him. This is at the behest of the government. The government has asked people to invest in these plans. When the money comes back a year later, it comes without any interest. The government will have it for over a year before it is back in the taxpayer's power for him to get interest on it.
Has the government considered this is really borrowing money from that taxpayer without paying any interest? Would the government consider providing an exemption certificate, or something like that, so that if the individual has invested in a MURB or in an oil drilling deferral plan he can show that evidence and see some of his returns for investing-which the government asked him to do-before some 15 to 18 months have gone by?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I think the problem raised by the hon. member could apply in the case of commissioned salesmen but also in other cases. If we followed up the hon. member's suggestion, it might be prejudicial to other taxpayers when they complete their tax return. They will pay the amount directly since it is deducted at the source. As for an investment in a MURB, for instance, which is a tax-saving device available to Canadian investors, such an investment would not exempt a taxpayer from paying income tax, even though by investing in a MURB, for instance, he might derive a tax benefit later on that would compensate the income tax he will not pay now. However, I believe that the implementation of such a measure would result in a certain element of distortion in relation to other taxpayers.
6904

February 4, 1981
Income Tax Act


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 76 to 83 inclusive agreed to.
[ Translation]
On Clause 84-
Charles Lapointe: That Clause 84 of Bill C-54 be amended by striking out lines 38 and 39 on page 163 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) Paragraph !49(9)(a) of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(a) there may be deducted an amount not exceeding its income for the year computed without including or deducting any amount under this subsection; and"
(3)	Subsection 149(10) of the said act is repealed.
(4)	Subsection (I) is applicable to the 1972 and subsequent taxation years.
(5)	Subsections (2) and (3) are applicable to taxation years commencing after October 28, 1980."


Stanley Howard Knowles: Could the minister explain that amendment?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Chairman, these two amendments are fiscal deductions for charitable organizations or any other tax exempt organizations. Those organizations must spend a certain percentage of their funds in one year, that is 90 per cent, and those changes will grant them a one-year deferment of income in calculating the percentage to be spent. Such is the purpose of those amendments.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Charles Lapointe: That Bill C-54 be amended by adding thereto, immediately after Clause 84 thereof, the following clause:
"84.1(1) Paragraph 149.1 (18)(a) of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(a) there may be deducted an amount not exceeding its income for the year computed without including or deducting any amount under this subsection; and"
(2)	Subsection 149.1 (19) of the said act is repealed.
(3)	Subsections (I) and (2) are applicable to taxation years commencing after October 28, 1980."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 84, as amended, agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Clauses 85 to 113 inclusive agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
On Clause 114-
Charles Lapointe: That subclause 1 14(1) of Bill C-54 be amended
(a) by striking out lines 27 to 30 on page 217 and substituting the following therefor:
"each property of the trust that his interest, at that time, in any income of the trust, computed as if no amounts were paid or payable to its beneficiaries, is of all such interests;";
(b)	by striking out lines 10 to 13 on page 218 and substituting the following therefor:
"each property of the trust that his interest, at that time, in any income of the trust, computed as if no amounts were paid or payable to its beneficiaries, is of all such interests;";
(c)	by striking out lines 25 to 37 on page 218 and substituting the following therefor:
"(a) "qualified trust" means a trust
(i)	that is not a registered investment,
(ii)	under which the proportion that a beneficiary's share of the income of the trust from any property of the trust bears to his share of the income of the trust is the same as the proportion so determined in respect of every other beneficiary of the trust in respect of the property, and for the purposes of this subparagraph, the income of the trust from a property of the trust and the income of the trust shall be computed as if no amounts were paid or payable by the trust to its beneficiaries,
(iii)	that has as its sole trustee a corporation licensed or otherwise authorized under the laws of Canada or a province to carry on in Canada the business of offering to the public its services as trustee, and
(iv)	that complies with prescribed conditions; and"; and
(d)	by striking out lines 1 to 3 on page 219 and substituting the following therefor:
"(ii) under which the proportion that a beneficiary's share of the income of the trust from any property of the trust bears to his share of the income of the trust is the same as the proportion so determined in respect of every other beneficiary of the trust in respect of that property, and for the purposes of this subparagraph, the income of the trust from a property of the trust and the income of the trust shall be computed as if no amounts were paid or payable by the trust to its beneficiaries, and"


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do you understand?


Charles Lapointe: Certainly!


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Chairman, Clause 114 of the bill includes one of the amendments dealing with qualified investment in deferred income plans as, for instance, the registered retirement savings plan or the registered home ownership savings plan. This clause constitutes a reduction meant to mitigate the penalties imposed on deferred income plans with respect to some investments which do not qualify. Representations have been made by various groups to the effect that this provision in its present form is for the most part ineffective since it applies only to unit trusts and does not adequately indentify a certain number of plans to which it should apply. The amendment we propose reduces taxation on some trusts which comply with the criteria listed in the amendment which was read so brilliantly by the Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Lapointe).


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 114, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 5 agreed to.
Clauses 116 to 120 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 121 -
February 4, 1981
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, if the hour were not so late I might have had quite a bit to say about Clause 121 because this is the clause of the bill on which the Minister of National Health and Welfare spoke at length when we were on second reading of the bill some time ago. My colleague from Broad-view-Greenwood touched on the matter when we were dealing with Clause 40 of the bill, so I shall just flag the matter for further discussion when the Minister of National Health and Welfare brings in the legislation which she has indicated.
As I understand it, the purpose of Clause 121, which is to amend the Canada Pension Plan, is to provide that when one spouse pays a salary to another, let us say in the case of a husband paying a salary to his wife which is recognized under the Income Tax Act, that salary can count for Canada Pension Plan purposes. As my colleague, the hon. member for Broad-view-Greenwood, said yesterday, we do not object to this.
We welcome extensions or improvements in coverage under the Canada Pension Plan or under related legislation, but we insist that the government must not take the position that this is enough in terms of covering spouses who work in the home. Even if the government provides for this kind of payment to be allowed, and even if the government permits spouses who work in the home to make voluntary contributions to the Canada Pension Plan, that covers only a very small minority of the women in this country who at the present time are not covered by the Canada Pension Plan. As I have said, we can debate this matter more fully when we get to that other legislation.
1 have to say to the present minister that when he says in this case and in other cases that this is just a step and the government cannot go all the distance at once, I hope that will not be the end of it. 1 heard him make a speech the other night to that effect which reminded me very much of Paul Martin, who used to put it in a different way. He used to say, "We cannot do everything overnight". The trouble with these things that cannot be done overnight is the fact that sometimes it takes ten, 20, 30 or 40 years. 1 have seen some legislation take that long to come.
In this very connection I point out that the introduction of the spouse's allowance was supposed to be just a step to help some of those between the ages of 60 and 65. We are still waiting for the other steps. That is my fear with this proposal regarding the Canada Pension Plan before us in this clause, that it is a step which may be taken but that we may have to wait a long time for the fulfilment of the idea that all women who work in the home should have recognition for the purposes of pension coverage.
As 1 say, Mr. Chairman, time is running short so I shall not extend this now, but I shall have more to say about it later.
However, while I am on my feet there is a word of tribute I should like to pay to a particular person, and I want to take a moment to make that tribute. We have just dealt with the Old Age Security Act. Let me say that back in 1950 when we had a special committee on old age security, which led to the Old Age Security Act, a tremendous contribution to the work of
Income Tax Act
that committee was made by a distinguished public servant who was then the director of research in the Department of National Health and Welfare. His name was Dr. J. W. Willard.
When we got to the Canada Pension Plan in the middle 1960s that same Dr. Willard was the deputy minister of welfare in that department. Again his contribution was invaluable. Dr. Willard had been ill for some considerable time. He died a few days ago and, in fact, 1 believe the funeral service was held this afternoon. We do not have the occasion to note contributions made by all public servants who serve this country, but I believe a word does need to be said about Dr. Willard, and in praising the work he has done we recognize the good work done by so many of those who work for us in the public service of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Chairman, there are just two things I would like to say. I commend the government for adopting this measure from the previous budget of John Crosbie. This means a lot to women and men. There is one correction I should like to make. There are many other things I should like to say as well but time is short. The bill refers to "the employment of a person by his spouse." Sometimes the lady is the boss and the man is the spouse. I would suggest it should read "his or her spouse."


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Interpretation Act covers that. [Translation]


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, I thought the hon. member wanted to join the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in the comments he just made in this House. I would like also, on behalf of the government and on my own behalf, to offer my deepest sympathies to Dr. Willard's family. 1 enjoyed the privilege of working under him when I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and Dr. Willard was deputy minister of that department.
I should remind hon. members of his qualities, of his great simplicity and especially of his unending devotion to public service. 1 am convinced that Canada had in Dr. Willard a quite remarkable, albeit humble, servant of the people working away from the public's eye. He was of the utmost efficiency and usefulness to the numerous Canadians who were fortunate enough to benefit from his advice. He always worked in the best interest of Canadians anxious as he was to see implemented in this country the welfare and social programs introduced by the various governments through the years.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 122 agreed to.
On Clause 123 -
[Stage Direction]
February 4, 1981
Income Tax Act
Gordon Edward Taylor: I am not going to make a speech about this, but there again we have "deemed income" which I do not like at all.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Denis Éthier: Shall the bill carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Bill reported as amended.


Pierre Bussières: that Bill C-54, to amend the statute law relating to income tax, as reported (with amendments) from Committee of the Whole, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask, or assume, that since there have been several amendments made to this bill in Committee of the Whole it will be reprinted showing those amendments?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: We will consider the suggestion by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) as seeking an order of the House. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed. [English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, February 5, 1981