1981-01-27

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, I move a motion under Standing Order 43. The Bank of Canada interest rate has floated at 17 per cent now for nearly two months. Forward positions indicate that interest rates will not significantly decline in the foreseeable future. A year ago, those now on the treasury benches campaigned on the promise that they would reduce interest rates. The rate was then 14 per cent; it is now 17 per cent. They have abandoned their promises. 1 therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker):
That this House immediately order its Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs to undertake an immediate review of the high interest rate policy of this government and of the Bank of Canada, and for this purpose the Governor of the Bank of Canada and the Minister of Finance appear before it to explain their actions and what they will be doing to solve the problem.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?
Some hon Members: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AWARDS AND DECORATIONS
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a motion under Standing Order 43, the intent of which I have discussed with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan). One year ago six Americans escaped from Iran with the help of Canadian diplomatic and military personnel. Most of the Canadians involved in the successful return of the American house guests were subsequently awarded their country's highest honour, the Order of Canada. Two persons, however, Mrs. Zena Sheardown and Mrs. Pat Taylor, whose role in sheltering the six Americans
was critical, were not awarded the Order of Canada. To redress this injustice I move, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp):
That this House go on record as strongly supporting the nomination by the Department of External Affairs that Mrs. Zena Sheardown and Mrs. Pat Taylor receive the Order of Canada for the courageous and indispensable role which they played in the rescue of six Americans from Tehran.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I gather there is unanimous consent for the presentation of this motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of great emergency. Recently CMHC officials informed the national anti-poverty organization that their contract as a RRAP home repair agency on the northern peninsula of Newfoundland was cancelled without notice. Since this program has successfully upgraded some 400 homes on the west coast, and over 140 east coast applicants desperately await home repairs and can provide labour while unemployed, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly):
That the minister responsible for CMHC immediately reinstate the NAPO-RRAP for at least six months in order to complete home repairs and solve administrative problems; and further, that CMHC extend RRAP in a more flexible, decentralized way, offering training for local workers in order to assist economic recovery in depressed rural areas and Indian reserves across Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

January 27, 1981


S O. 43 EXCISE TAX REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PAYMENT-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under Standing Order 43 to draw to the attention of this House an injustice arising from the federal excise tax on natural gas and which is being underlined by the presence in Ottawa today of the 18 directors of the Alberta Gas Co-ops Federation. Under present regulations the excise tax must be paid within 30 days from the end of the month in which the gas is used. Most gas utilities do not collect revenue or make calculations of gas sales until approximately 75 days from the end of the month in which the gas is used, and cannot comply with existing payment regulations. In fact, at present many gas utilities must borrow money at excessively high interest rates to pay the tax. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That the government accede to the request of the Alberta Gas Co-ops that all gas utilities be allowed 90 days following the end of the month in which the gas is used to calculate, collect and remit the excise tax to Revenue Canada until the tax can be eliminated completely.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the presentation of this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. As the Supreme Court of Canada on December 18 recognized the equal contribution of a woman to the success of her partner, awarding Rosa Becker half the assets accumulated by her common law partner of 19 years, and as the Treasury Board has finally decided to honour recommendations of the Canadian Human Rights Commission giving the female-dominated library science group of federal librarians salary equalization adjustments so that their pay indicates their work has equal value with that of the male-dominated historical research librarians,
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That this House urge the government to act on the directions of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and immediately implement a long outstanding "equal pay for work of equal value" settlement with its federal cafeteria and laundry workers.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE MINISTRY
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), in his speech to dairy farmers at Moncton, New Brunswick, on January 20, 1981, stated:
-so it seems sad to me to hear some citizens of this country talking about not wanting to share their regional resources or their tax revenues with the other parts of the country.
It is clear that the minister was referring to the people of British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan, even though they have in fact shared their oil and gas wealth and tax revenues to a greater extent than any province at any time in confederation and have always paid the extra tariff charges to support manufacturing in central Canada. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That the Prime Minister direct the Minister of Agriculture to stop sowing the seeds of dissension in other parts of Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The National Energy Program has fostered and is continuing to foster apprehension in Canada. Much of this apprehension is caused by the repeated suggestion that loss of provincial ownership of resources is at stake. To reduce such apprehension I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Vankoughnet):
That Parliament, through appropriate action of this House, reaffirm that natural resources within the boundaries of each and every province shall remain the property of the provinces; and furthermore, that the final address to Her Majesty on constitutional patriation shall contain within the proposed amending formula a section affirming that no existing natural resource ownership rights shall be taken from any province without the express consent of the affected province.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
January 27, 198 1


CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In a poll conducted recently in the riding of Peterborough, Ontario, 5,927 respondents answered the following question: "Do you support capital punishment for premeditated first degree murder?" Of these respondents, 5,168 or 87.2 per cent answered in the affirmative. Therefore 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott):
That this House urge the government to respond to Canadians and refer this subject of capital punishment to the all-party Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for its recommendations to be made to Parliament, or follow the example of the Conservatives and pledge support for a free vote in this House on the subject of capital punishment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Does the House give unanimous consent to this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It goes to the heart of the parliamentary system and concerns the Solicitor General who on Friday, as a minister of the Crown and appearing as the Acting Minister of Justice, a position he holds by virtue of an order in council, gave an undertaking on behalf of the government which later, according to the Minister of Justice, "we decided, the Prime Minister and I, that we were not to accept".
Since the Prime Minister has repudiated the minister, has he asked for the resignation of that minister, or has that resignation been offered to the Prime Minister?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No, Madam Speaker.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, this House can not function if the word of hon. members can not be accepted. Particularly it can not function if we cannot accept the word of ministers with
Oral Questions
respect to bills which they are piloting through the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: By his answer the Prime Minister has indicated that the word of the Acting Minister of Justice in committee, on a bill he is piloting, is absolutely worthless. He has thrown aside the ability of this House and the public of Canada to trust the word of a minister.
My question to the Prime Minister is this. Since we have an energy bill before-the House of Commons and in a committee, does the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who is piloting that bill through the committee, speak for the government, or will his word be repudiated by the Prime Minister? There are finance bills which are coming through. When they are in committee does the Minister of Finance speak for the government on those questions or will he be repudiated by the Prime Minister?


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Prime Minister has abandoned the traditional standards of this House.


Madam Speaker:: I must ask the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition to put his question.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, my question is: since the Prime Minister has abandoned the traditional standards on which this House has customarily relied, what new standards has he put in place in order to tell us which word of which minister in this House can be trusted and accepted?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, there are no new standards; the same standards continue to apply.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, if the same standards apply then the Solicitor General of Canada, as Acting Minister of Justice, should resign and have his resignation placed before the Prime Minister and this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: During the time in which the Acting Minister of Justice made the statement which has been repudiated by the Prime Minister, he was serving in that position by order in council, by the direct instruction of the Government of Canada, and he was flanked by the advisers of the Minister of Justice. 1 wonder whether the Prime Minister can tell us if everything else the Solicitor General said on that occasion was a mistake too. Was everything else he said to be distrusted and thrown aside? Has the Prime Minister repudiated everything the minister said? How does the House of Commons know what is repudiated and what is not?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is making an emotional argument about something which happens frequently.

January 27, 1981
Oral Questions


An hon. Member:: It only happens to you!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The member opposite says it only happens when we are on this side. Well, Madam Speaker, they changed their minds with respect to Petro-Canada and we did not make a great fuss.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Was the former prime minister talking about his government's policy when he took the position on moving the embassy to Jerusalem? Was he taking an official position and was he repudiating himself and forcing himself to resign?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Dictator.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members should allow the Right Hon. Prime Minister to answer the question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it was not the Solicitor General who was at fault here. I believe, quite frankly, that when this government presented the amendments to the provinces last summer, including a provision for the protection of property, this was our position. This was the position of the Minister of Justice as he negotiated with the provinces throughout the summer.


Mr. Nielsen:: It was his position four days ago, too.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Therefore, there is nothing untoward or surprising about this turn of events. The point is that the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General at different times were trying to obtain increased consensus for the bill.


Mr. Dick:: When is Broadbcnt going to join the cabinet?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The difference is that when we talk of increased consensus, we are trying to obtain the support of more provinces or to bring the opposition party onside. When the Leader of the Opposition changes his mind, all he is attempting to do is get his own party onside.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister continues his dances of evasion at which he is a renowned expert. Will the Prime Minister answer this simple question: When does a minister speak for the Government of Canada on a bill which that minister is piloting through a committee of Parliament, and when will that minister be repudiated, as the Solicitor General was repudiated by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice and the Leader of the New Democratic Party the other day? When can we trust the word of a minister of this government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it would seem to me that rather than talk of dancing, the Leader of the Opposition should have listened to my previous answer. The minister was speaking for the government when he made that offer on Friday.


Charles Joseph Clark: Commitment.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, and, 1 repeat, that was our position last summer. But it did not bring the Tories onside. They seem to want this amendment, but they do not want the whole charter.


Charles Joseph Clark: When can you be trusted, Pierre?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Leader of the Opposition asks when I can be trusted. I did not ask him that question when he took his position on Jerusalem or on Petro-Canada; I said that it was wrong.


Mr. Lawrence:: If I remember rightly, you would not take a position on that issue.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition believes that the position taken by the Solicitor General was wrong, he may make his arguments. But we changed our mind on the matter, and it is as simple as that, as the Leader of the Opposition has changed his mind on several matters.


ALLEGED BREACH OF COMMITMENTS BY MINISTER
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has said that these flip-flops happen frequently; I imagine he was referring to his government. But the situation which we have now is that an undertaking was given by the Solicitor General who was acting as the Minister of Justice, and a clause was passed on that undertaking. That clause was then changed when we moved to another clause because of the undertaking. So there was a very definite-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that he cannot refer to the proceedings of the committee in question and, therefore, he cannot refer to the fact that a clause was passed. If the hon. member has a question concerning policy or matters which do not refer to the proceedings, he may proceed with that question.


Erik Nielsen: This concerns Parliament.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: In view of the fact that certain decisions and actions were taken because of commitments made by a minister under oath, on what basis does the Prime Minister feel he is justified to breach or flip-flop on those commitments? The Prime Minister has said it is because of objections by the provinces, but at the same time he overrides those objections and is willing to impose a referendum, is not willing to impose an amending formula, and there are many other parts of the charter which are opposed as well. How does the Prime Minister square that double standard?
January 27, 1981


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the first part of the question, Madam Speaker, I think the wisdom of the rules of the House is justified in that I do not know about the clause and what was given in exchange, as he says-


An hon. Member:: You will find out.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will find out when the committee reports, but I think the substance of the question is more serious and I will attempt to answer that seriously. Our position has been, Madam Speaker, that when we brought the resolution before the House we had at least the New Democratic Party onside and we had-


An hon. Member:: They sold out early.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and we had the Premier of Ontario and the Premier of New Brunswick onside. In other words, we all thought that this action was necessary and important at this time. Since then we have heard many witnesses in committee, and the position taken by the government and expressed when the Minister of Justice brought in his amendments was that any amendment we could bring in which would increase the support and augment the consensus behind this resolution would be accepted by the government. But we would not accept an amendment, no matter how desirable it would be, if it were going to diminish the support we have now.
Our position on that was that these amendments would be discussed at the second stage.


An hon. Member:: That is leadership?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The important thing is to get the resolution through. That is leadership. Madam Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Sixty-four per cent.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 think the hon. member opposite is really off base when he talks about waffling. We hear that the Conservative party-


An hon. Member:: Are you going to waffle?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -is in favour of a charter-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I am afraid I have to interrupt the Right Hon. Prime Minister. I would ask him to answer the question that is asked in the House-


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: He is doing his best.


Madam Speaker:: -rather than answering the interjections that come from other members. The hon. member for Provencher.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, I want to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. He said that many witnesses appeared before the committee and that is true. Invariably,
Oral Questions
they wanted property rights. Many Canadians want the guarantee of property rights-


An hon. Member:: Most of them.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: -included in the charter of rights. I want to ask the Prime Minister why it was in view of the testimony of the Minister of Justice when he said, "We decided, the Prime Minister and I, that we would not accept"-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Charles Joseph Clark: When did he say it. Madam Speaker?


Madam Speaker:: I was not there, but I believe that the hon. member is now quoting proceedings from the committee and that is not allowed in this House at this time.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: It is a policy question and an important question.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister, in view of the statements made at various times and by his minister that they needed the support of the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) and the NDP and the support of Premier Blakeney and the NDP-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: -could the Prime Minister answer this: Why was that pressure so extreme that he was, in fact, willing to override-


Mr. Lalonde:: His name is not Peter.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: -the wishes of the majority of Canadians who wanted to see property rights included?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, in so far as the federal government and jurisdiction is concerned, property rights are now contained in the Bill of Rights passed when the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker was Prime Minister.


An hon. Member:: So is the preamble.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In that sense, Madam Speaker, property rights are protected now.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They are in so far as federal jurisdiction is concerned. I understand that the position of the Tory party-


Charles Joseph Clark: That is not what Bob Kaplan said.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -is that they do not want to impose the charter on the provinces.


An hon. Member:: What is the position of the Grit party?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is the position of the Tory party.


An hon. Member:: What is the Grit position?

January 27, 1981
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But we have those rights federally now. They do not want to impose that on the provinces. It is hard to see what they are complaining about. They were proposing an amendment which, if passed by us, would go against the will of several provinces.


An hon. Member:: It was accepted by your minister.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member mentioned the Premier of Saskatchewan. He might mention the Premier and government of Prince Edward Island. As he knows, the attorney general of Prince Edward Island was in this city lobbying against the clause on property rights.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: You are getting senile.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: All you wanted was-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will make an offer-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Pro-vencher is allowed one supplementary question, not a second one from his seat.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Over the past few months this House and the people of Canada have been patently misled about the amount and degree of chemical warfare testing in this country. First we had the 1953 tests in Winnipeg, then the tests off Vancouver Island in the mid-sixties, and now we have the Gagetown tests. Will the minister now come clean and tell us how many more tests like Gage-town occurred, when they occurred and how they occurred? Will he also tell us if there are any more tests like this going on today?
[ Translation]


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, 1 think I already answered the question of the hon. member for Selkirk-Interlake yesterday when 1 told him that on the basis of our information, no further tests have been made to spray chemical products in the air, over bases or over public areas, and that I have given very strict instructions so that in future no project may be carried out without the minister's formal authorization.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Madam Speaker, if the minister had answered that question yesterday, I would not have asked it again today.
Yesterday the minister did admit to this House that he had known since last September of the existence of the Gagetown
report and tests. Given the seriousness of the potential health hazards, why did the minister cover this up at the time? Did he inform the Prime Minister and the minister of health so that the proper precautionary steps might be taken, and if not, why not?


Mr. Lamontagne:: Madam Speaker, you have to put this incident in a proper and realistic perspective. These tests were done in 1966 and 1967. They were performed over a small area of a large base, namely, Gagetown, which comprises
250,000	acres. The tests were done on 400 acres. According to Mr. Hellyer, the minister at the time, they were strictly routine tests. I do not think the minister or even the Prime Minister should be advised of everything taking place on all of the bases across Canada. The product was commercially used. It is still commercially used, and we had no reason to think there would be any harm to the health of the people.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Madam Speaker, the minister has just admitted to this House that the tests were routine at the time. That would indicate to me that there is a possibility of considerably more tests and more hazards to the health of the Canadian military personnel involved. The minister also says there is no evidence as to the seriousness of the effects. How does the minister respond to the 2,000 Americans who are now suing Dow Chemical and the other manufacturers of Agent Orange? How does he respond to charges of proof that dioxin is one of the most deadly chemicals known to man? Has the minister sought any information from other sources, particularly the American government, as to how to deal with these potential health hazards caused by Agent Orange and other chemicals containing dioxin?


Maurice Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member is making presumptions. 1 do not want to get involved in a legal argument with the United States government or the veterans' association of the United States. As I said before, I am ready, along with the minister of health for New Brunswick-the product is still being used in New Brunswick-and our own health minister, to collaborate fully in any kind of investigation into that product and how it could harm people.


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday Canadian Press reported the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice as saying that the government was considering breaking its commitment to support the inclusion of property rights in the constitution because the continued support of the NDP was very important to the government. May I ask the Prime Minister whether the government has received the assurance from the NDP that as a result of breaking that
January 27, 1981

commitment it will have the continued support of the NDP for the government's constitutional package?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, 1 think the hon. member has the sequence wrong.


An hon. Member:: The parliamentary secretary.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: My understanding is that the Minister of Justice said Friday that he would not support that amendment. I understand the Leader of the NDP made his "threat" on Sunday. 1 can tell you. Madam Speaker, what our position was; I said it a moment ago. Any amendment which will bring us greater support, 1 will accept. Any amendment which will erode the support, including that of the NDP, I will not accept.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister, of course, is wrong. It was the Acting Minister of Justice who, on Friday, said the government would support the amendment. It was not until yesterday evening at eight o'clock that the Minister of Justice indicated that he was betraying the commitment that was made.
In view of the statement just made by the Prime Minister that any amendment which would win increased support from Canadians he would support, and in view of the fact that the government is prepared to change its position for the support of 32 New Democrats, will the government listen to the voice of 64 per cent of the Canadian people who are asking the Prime Minister to bring the Canadian constitution back to Canada unamended, and to make substantive changes here in Canada and not in the parliament of Westminster?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the first part of the hon. member's question I would have to defer to the Minister of Justice, who has left the House temporarily.


An hon. Member:: He is over there.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: He said yesterday he would answer last night.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I understood him to say that it was on Friday that he indicated that he could not support the property rights amendment.
As to the other part of the question, Madam Speaker, it seems to me its very phrasing indicates that if we went this course we would not get greater support for the resolution. On the contrary, we would be destroying the resolution.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 see an hon. member waving at somebody in the gallery. I do not know what his point is, but I am telling him that if he is suggesting that we withdraw the resolution in order to get his support, I say no, we will not do that.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Listen to Canadians for a change.
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We would amend the resolution to get his support, as we did with the NDP and as we did with some of the provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SUGGESTED CHANGE OF POSITION BY MINISTER OF JUSTICE
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, perhaps I can help the Prime Minister by directing a question to the Minister of Justice, because he does not seem to fully appreciate what is going on here or the import of this question. The minister has indicated, and it is now a matter of public record, that he and the Prime Minister on Friday decided that they could not accept the Conservative property rights amendment. That was the same day that the Solicitor General, as Acting Minister of Justice, gave the exact opposite commitment in committee when he indicated that he would accept it.


Erik Nielsen: On behalf of the government.


James Aloysius McGrath: We moved to another clause when that commitment was made and we agreed to withdraw.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I think it would be wise just to proceed to the question; the preamble is too long and the hon. member is getting into proceedings of the committee.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I certainly do not want to transgress the rules of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: But I say to you with great respect that this goes beyond the committee; this goes right to the heart and soul of Parliament. That is what we are talking about-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: -as well as the accountability of this government to Parliament and whether or not we can accept the government's word. That is what we are talking about, Madam Speaker.
Did the minister meet with the Prime Minister on Friday within minutes after the solemn undertaking was made to the committee by his colleague acting on his behalf?


An hon. Member:: It was Thursday.


James Aloysius McGrath: Can he tell us from where the opposition came, because there was no opposition coming forward until the weekend? The Leader of the NDP himself did not speak until Sunday. Where did the opposition come from? What caused him to change his mind on Friday?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, on Friday night, probably nine or ten hours after the meeting, I was talking by telephone to the Prime Minister in light of the developing opposition. We recognized that 1 could not have

January 27, 1981
Oral Questions
communicated with the Solicitor General. The conditions which were approved by cabinet were, as the Prime Minister said, that if it would enlarge our support we would go along with it. By Friday afternoon that was not so. It was indicated to the committee and we received some information to that effect. This was confirmed on Sunday, 48 hours later, by the Leader of the New Democratic Party. On Monday night the attorney general for Prince Edward Island was before the committee. On Monday afternoon the Premier of Prince Edward Island was objecting to it.


Charles Joseph Clark: This was Friday.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: As we were not, according to our directive, improving the consensus, we concluded that if we did not get unanimous support in the committee we would not go along with it. It was quite evident there was no unanimity. Therefore, on Monday we decided that, unfortunately the consensus was not developing. We could agree because we agreed in July-and I conceded to the provinces in the summer-that I would not impose this on them.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is to help the House try and get through that bafflegab. If he and the Prime Minister changed their minds because of opposition from the provinces-and he cited the attorney general of Prince Edward Island-can he tell us why the double standard? I recall the Premier of Saskatchewan coming before the committee and objecting in the strongest terms to the unilateral provisions of section 42, yet nothing has changed there. Why deny Canadians property rights while imposing upon them an amending formula which will deny their provincial rights in their legislatures?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, the committee has yet to reach section 42. We will get to it soon if the opposition is prepared to get down to business and pass the amendments. The committee has now been sitting for four or five months and we are still on section 7. I think many sections have to be adopted between 7 and 42, and I have already indicated that we will be moving amendments to that section when we get to that stage of the resolution. We will settle that problem then. All I am saying, as I clearly explained in committee this morning, is that had the committee been unanimous-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. minister is now repeating what he said in committee this morning, and that is out of order because obviously we cannot entertain that question in both places. Therefore, I would urge the hon. minister to abide by the rules of the House.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I am quite prepared to abide by the rules, but I am answering the question put to me and if my reply is out of order, I suggest the question was out
of order as well and I am prepared to discuss it again at 3.30 this afternoon.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: Changing the subject.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Here's the culprit.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


John Edward Broadbent: I have a question for the Minister of National Defence.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Friesen:: Self-defence.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the Conservatives are obviously upset because we managed to get a lot of amendments accepted by the government and they are losing out.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: My question to the Minister of National Defence concerns a very important health matter. American authorities have recognized the harmful effects of Agent Orange, contrary to what the minister of defence is implying. We have been misled in this House a number of times about the frequency of use of other chemicals of a military nature being tested in Canada. Finally, considering the erroneous information of different kinds related to the subject matter that has been presented to this House, will the minister now consider establishing an independent commission under the Inquiries Act which will have the full authority to investigate all the health implications of these tests, so that we can finally get to the bottom of this very serious health problem?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: I would first say, Madam Speaker, that I have never misled this House on the issue mentioned by the hon. member for Oshawa. I have always tried to state the truth regarding spraying, whatever kind it may be, certainly with regard to the two incidents since I have been minister. With regard to the one in Winnipeg, the truth came out in a report that was published. Everything was made clear and there was no question of a health hazard in connection with that spraying.
With regard to the second one in Oromocto or at the Gagetown base, this is another matter which the hon. member does not understand. The first was a harmless spraying over a portion of Winnipeg. The second was over a very small area of a large military base in places where there were no humans.
January 27, 1981

They did not spray humans, they sprayed vegetation. This is still being done in forestry areas for other purposes in the province of New Brunswick.
With regard to the hon. member's comment that U.S. authorities have said this chemical is dangerous and condemn it, I would like him to tell me why the issue is not being settled between veterans in the United States and the U.S. government, which did not admit to any damage being done by such products.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the minister has sat on a report he has had on this subject since last September. The report indicated very clearly that experts in the United States have clearly argued that these substances are profoundly dangerous to human health. He has admitted in the last couple of days that this is apparently a routine procedure.


Maurice Lamontagne: Was.


John Edward Broadbent: He says was, in the past. Apparently they have changed it. Perhaps there is some consciousness that there are dangerous implications. Considering that the matter in the United States has not been settled and is now before the courts, with a considerable amount of medical information on the side of those who are fighting the case, why does the minister not establish an independent inquiry in Canada which will make available to the Canadian public, particularly those who might have been affected, all the health implications of these tests?


Maurice Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, 1 stated very clearly yesterday, and I repeat it for the hon. member for Oshawa, that if he is concerned about a health hazard as a result of these incidents, I am ready to co-operate fully with the New Brunswick health department and our federal health department and to investigate the whole issue as much as the hon. member wants.


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister and the government knew there were some objections to an amendment on property rights well before the commitment was made in committee. The Prime Minister and the government knew full well that the Conservative party was not supporting many aspects of this resolution. The Prime Minister said today that the commitment was made in order to broaden consensus. Knowing that it would not broaden consensus, why did the Solicitor General, the acting justice minister, make that commitment? Is the Prime Minister really trying to make us believe that it was put forward to broaden consensus which the Prime Minister knew perfectly well did not exist?
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the federal Conservative party seems to attach such importance to this matter-


An hon. Member:: You're damned right we do.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member says, "You're damned right we do". I say that if they want that amendment so badly in the constitution, and they want it so badly that it should bind all the provinces as well as the federal government, then let them come and support us and maybe I will give up the support of the NDP.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker, 1 remind the Prime Minister that the Conservative proposal is to put these provisions that we have been suggesting and working on to the provinces. I come back to what my question to the Prime Minister really was; he has not answered it. He now says he was trying to broaden the approach. Knowing there was no consensus, why did the Prime Minister permit the Solicitor General to go ahead and make a commitment which was not made on the basis of getting support from us for anything, broadening consensus or anything else, but was clearly made as a consequence of some decision in government? The Prime Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot be saying it was to broaden consensus when he knew it would not broaden consensus.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Let me make it clear, Madam Speaker. I thought I said earlier that this government supported the property rights clause. We presented it to the provinces last summer. I personally would have liked to see it in the constitution. It was opposed by many of the provinces.


An hon. Member:: By Ed.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member for Oshawa was not a party to the negotiations last summer. The negotiations last summer were with the provinces, not with the NDP. We still hoped at that time to get support for the people's package. In the people's package was a clause concerning the protection of property rights. There was a last attempt on Thursday and Friday by the Solicitor General, since it was the federal Conservative party that willed so strongly against the will of some Conservative premiers of the provinces to have this in the package.


Charles Joseph Clark: A commitment given under oath.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There was a disposition to get the Tory party onside. It did not have this effect so we changed our mind. 1 put it again today; if putting property rights into the constitution will obtain us the support of several of the Tory premiers and of the leader of the Conservative party for the resolution, then I will go back to cabinet and see if we will not change our mind again.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

January 27, 1981
Oral Questions


REPORT OF TEXTILE AND CLOTHING BOARD-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Seven months ago the Textile and Clothing Board presented to the government an exhaustive study on the textile industry problems in which it recommended that the quotas negotiated with several countries be extended for nine years. Considering that in the same report the board was asking and urging the minister to take immediate steps concerning the shirt industry in Canada, that no decision has been taken after seven months and that over 700 workers are without jobs, I would ask the minister whether he intends to intervene at the earliest opportunity and make public the government position about the report of the Textile and Clothing Board?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, when I tabled the report of the Textile and Clothing Board I stated that the intention of the government was to make an attempt to reply to the recommendations of the report in March. I am endeavouring to achieve that objective within the time limit specified when I tabled the report. I am fully aware of the difficulties experienced by the shirt industry and I am still looking into this problem to find out whether it is necessary to take emergency action even before announcing our general policy.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is further to the exchange yesterday between the Minister of Finance and the hon. member for Calgary Centre on the question of referring the National Energy Program to a special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons. My question is addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Since the National Energy Program acknowledges almost a total revolution in energy development in this country, 1 am sure the minister is encountering a great degree of uncertainty among consumers, industry and provinces as to the impact of this program.
Since the National Energy Program is the subject of at least five separate pieces of legislation, will the minister add his support to the fairly positive response of the Minister of Finance in allowing this program to be considered by a special committee of the Senate and House of Commons?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the way I read it in Hansard, it seems to me that the Minister of Finance rejected that suggestion yesterday.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I read Hansard too and 1 felt there was a generally positive response to the proposal put forward by my hon. friend. The minister has acknowledged that the National Energy Program will totally change energy development in this country. Changes of this magnitude usually result in a great degree of disruption for different elements of the economy and society. The risks to our security of supply, our balance of payments, the economic development of the country and the total fibre of the country are stretched to very great limits. Surely the people of Canada must be able to assess this risk. There are major disagreements as to the impact, so would the minister explain why it is not in the general interest of a clearer understanding of the National Energy Program to have a discussion and consideration of this total program in one place, in one forum, not spread among five different forums as a result of the different pieces of legislation?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, there is one forum where this matter is considered, and that is called Parliament. The matter has been debated extensively in this House. The National Energy Program has been debated extensively in this House during the budget debate, six consecutive days when the pricing issue was debated, as well as during the consideration of the oil and gas act, the Income Tax Act amendments which are before the House at the present time, and before the parliamentary committee where Bill C-48 is being considered. There has been no shortage of places or avenues for debate and discussion of this subject and the hearing of witnesses. In addition, the National Energy Program has been the subject of discussion and debate in the media and before provincial and federal boards. So there has been ample opportunity for the expression of views on this particular subject. I fail to see what the suggestion of my hon. friend would achieve in advancing the debate any further.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, my question today is for the minister responsible for CMHC and it pertains to some remarks made last week in the House by the Minister of National Health and Welfare concerning people who have experienced difficulties as a result of the installation of UF foam. She said at that time they could contact their physicians, her office or the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources if they were experiencing difficulties. A constituent at that time telephoned me to indicate
January 27, 1981

she had been suffering from these symptoms for two years after her home was filled with foam, and her physician was completely unaware of this problem and the symptoms that result.
In light of that I would ask the minister whether he would undertake to notify every physician in Canada of the potential hazards of this substance? Will he also provide testing equipment in every region in Canada so people experiencing difficulty can have access to this equipment? In addition, would he contact every contractor who has installed this material in order to obtain the names of individuals whose homes have been affected, so those people can be circularized by the government and if they are experiencing problems be told where they may obtain information. Finally, Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. We have had about three questions in one and the hon. member is going on to a fourth one. I will allow the minister to answer those questions which have been asked.


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I will be happy to bring the member's representations to the attention of the minister, who is not here today. I might repeat, though, an answer I gave earlier in the House. 1 think his questions are somewhat premature as we are awaiting the final report on the status of the UF material.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, there was only one other point in that regard. I doubt the representations are premature since people are experiencing very serious difficulties with this material already. The previous speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs are fairly competent at putting off this matter. I am just wondering if the minister responsible for housing would take the bull by the horns and do something. The fourth point is, will the minister ensure that there is a financial program in place to help people whose homes have to be rehabilitated because of the government's encouragement of the use of this very serious and damaging insulation through the RRAP and CHIP programs, affecting approximately
100,000	homes in Canada?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, with respect, I believe the question is really a repetition of the same question which has been asked on three occasions. I do believe the question in substance is premature and I would have to wait for the report of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Canadian passport, presumably by international
Business of the House
convention, has a heading indicating the birthplace of the citizen. This information can and has led to some discriminatory treatment at some foreign borders. Would the minister consider taking some steps to have this information deleted from this document?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I recognize that the fact that such information is required does occasionally cause difficulties for Canadian citizens, but for the vast majority it greatly facilitates their admission to various countries of the world because, under international standards for passports, that information is required. Therefore, while I will re-examine the question in the light of my hon. friend's comment, I would not want to encourage him to think that a change in the policy is likely.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, I have had consultations with the House leaders of the opposition parties and I am pleased to report that we have come to an agreement concerning the second reading stage of the access to information bill. I therefore ask for unanimous consent to the following House order:
That on Thursday, January 29, 1981, the business first taken up under government orders shall be the second reading stage of Bill C-43, an act to enact the access to information act and the privacy act, to amend the Federal Court Act and the Canada Evidence Act, and to amend certain other acts in consequence thereof;
That, during debate on the said stage of the said bill, no member shall speak for more than 20 minutes;
That private members' business shall not be taken up on the said day; and
That no later than 10 p.m., on the said day the Speaker shall interrupt proceedings and put forthwith and successively every question necessary for the completion of the said stage of the said bill without further debate or amendment.


Madam Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the proposed House order. Does the House agree to that order?


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, there have been consultations with respect to that matter which we did discuss and agree upon. The question which I have in my mind is whether there will be any change in that now as a result of what occurred in the question period. Is it indeed the government's intention to carry that out and not change the business in the middle of the day?


Mr. Rose:: Madam Speaker, on behalf of my House leader and of my party, I should like to confirm that I have been informed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that that is in fact the agreement. We will be pleased to participate in the debate on the grounds outlined.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House accept the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
January 27, 1981
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker PRIVILEGE

Walter David Baker: I rise on a question of privilege, Madam Speaker. I wanted to have the freedom of information matter in place before rising on a question of privilege, but since I did not take part in the question period I cannot rise on a question of privilege which applies to me as a participant in the question period. However, I can do so as a member of the House, and it is on that basis that I do so. We have found ourselves in a different position here with respect to what might be called the grease or lubrication which makes this place function appropriately, that is the matter of trust, integrity, honesty and forthrightness which should exist when ministers of the Crown take a position as part of the parliamentary process and that process is reported here in the House of Commons.
Last Friday, a minister, acting under the provisions of PC 18-824, an order which was tabled in the House of Commons and which gives him the authority, made a statement on behalf of the government, acting as minister in a committee. Therefore that matter is here now before us in the House of Commons. The minister gave an unequivocal undertaking on amendments with respect to property rights which were proposed by one party and which were accepted by the minister because they were put by this party, amendments which were repudiated the next day on some other ground, a ground that is now characterized by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who is not part of those proceedings, as the wish to expand the level of acceptance. On sheer numbers alone, Madam Speaker, that is a shocking statement when the comparison is made between the 32 members of the rump-


An hon. Member:: The red rump.


Walter David Baker: -of the red rump, whose support they were seeking, and this party, and more than that, the large group of Canadians.
Ministers do not speak idly anywhere, and I suggest that ministers do not remain silent in the House of Commons when, in effect, they have been repudiated by the Prime Minister and by the government. It is the minister's duty to this House to rise in his place to explain precisely what happened, and because he is a law officer of the Crown, one of the ministers who has responsibility with respect to the law, certainly in this matter under that order perhaps he has the duty to consider his own place within the administration and whether or not he can be or should be accepted now as Solicitor General.


An hon. Member:: Tell him, Pierre.


Walter David Baker: The only way in which this government can recover itself with respect to this breach is for the Prime Minister to ask for the resignation or, failing that, for the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) to tender his resignation immediately.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: As Acting Minister of Justice and acting in the capacity of Attorney General of Canada, he is not an ordinary line minister. He carries responsibilities on his shoulders which are far beyond those of an ordinary line minister. It is now apparent that either he was acting under instruction or he was not. If he was acting under instructions, they have been repudiated. If he was not acting under instructions, then he should not hold the portfolio, even of Solicitor General, let alone that of Acting Minister of Justice.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Walter David Baker: The veil of silence is something we cannot take-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. 1 just want to remind the hon. member that he should not be commenting on what took place in the committee and referring to instructions which the minister might or might not have had. I can accept the argument which the hon. member is making about what took place in the House and what he thinks should follow as a consequence of what happened this afternoon, but the hon. member knows that he must limit his argumentation solely to what took place in the House and not refer to the committee.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I am trying to do that within the purview of the case because the matter was raised by members of Parliament on this side of the House in questions to the Leader of the Government, the Prime Minister. We are at this point now that on one of the most crucial matters that we could ever discuss in this House of Commons, we have had a flip-flop of monumental proportions. The House, and perhaps the country, have been deceived, and I think that if the Solicitor General sits silent and makes no explanation, he should not occupy that position. He would do us all and himself a favour by resigning, or he should stand in his place and tell us exactly what happened. But this place cannot operate if a position taken by the government in the House or elsewhere is taken on one day and denied on the next. We cannot operate that way.
1 leave the matter now and reserve whatever rights 1 may have following a statement which 1 hope will be made by someone with respect to what did occur.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, I will be very brief because the answers which were given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) were totally responsive to the questions which were asked, and set out all the facts. With respect to my silence, under the rules this is the first opportunity I have had to rise since the matter was raised at two o'clock. None of the questions was directed to me, and this is the first order of business following the question period. So the hon. member is greatly exaggerating the implications of a member remaining in his place and obeying the rules.
I was authorized by the government and under the order in council to represent the Minister of Justice in his regrettable
January 27, 1981

absence last week. 1 did so. The spirit in which we are approaching the preparation of the joint address, and in particular the charter of rights, is one in which we want to seek the broadest possible support. We are willing to accept sensible resolutions from both parties, provided the resolutions improve the charter, but Conservative members are playing games with us.
Some hon. [Members: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: They are putting forward an amendment designed to give Canadian people the impression that they stand for the right of enjoyment of property.


Some hon. Members:: We do.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Yet, they have made it very clear that that charter of rights is not to apply. It is not to be binding and available for the citizens of Canada. It must be submitted to the provincial governments. We view that as an unsatisfactory state of affairs in this country.
It has been referred to as a checkerboard in which the arsenal of rights and freedoms provided for all Canadians, or prepared by the government for all Canadians, should only be binding from province to province.


An hon. Member:: What did you say last week?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Our approach, and I believe the continued approach of the Minister of Justice, will be to try to encourage the participation of all members, to take any amendments which will strengthen the charter and will add support to it. As was indicated, following the meeting it appeared that the amendment, however well-meaning we were in the position we took, would not increase the support for it; in fact it would reduce the support for it.


Henry Perrin Beatty: By 32.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) characterized my position as a statement under oath. It was far from it. It was a negotiation which was taking place in the committee. It was a give and take effort, which is the spirit in which I approached that responsibility to improve the bill of rights and to increase support for it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in relation to the remarks just made by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan). I gather there is some-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on the question of privilege introduced by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), or is he rising on a new one?


David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege flowing from the remarks made by the Solicitor General.
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker


Madam Speaker:: I would say that probably the hon. member wants to intervene on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton, and I recognize him now.


David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, I will try to be brief. I have some difficulty trying to raise the question which bothers me without transgressing into the area which Your Honour has already admonished us not to, that is, the proceedings of the committee.
The Solicitor General indicated that hon. members opposite to him were playing games in the committee. That is somewhat the basis of my question of privilege. Throughout all the discussions since Thursday and Friday, and today the questions in the House, the undertaking about which people have remarked that the Solicitor General gave, was an undertaking to me. It is a matter of public record for anyone to read.
After I made an intervention at a particular meeting, the Solicitor General-


Madam Speaker:: I gather that particular meeting is the committee; I was not there either.


Erik Nielsen: Wait until you hear it.


An hon. Member:: This is absurd.


Madam Speaker:: Even if the hon. member does not mention the committee, he cannot refer to the proceedings. Now that is exactly what he was doing, although I have not read the proceedings. So, I ask him to speak about what happened in the House this afternoon.


David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, I apologize for that. It is a serious matter to me and I simply want to get out the entire story as I understand it because I was not here on Friday and Monday.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Here is a press report; here is another one.


David Edward Crombie: Let me go by press reports then. The facts of the matter are that the Solicitor General gave an undertaking-it is a matter of public record-with respect to a motion that we include property rights in a charter of rights. It was a solemn undertaking to me as a member of that committee and as a member of this House.
When the Solicitor General speaks in this House on matters outside the House and when he uses the words "playing games", not only am I personally offended by that, because it was an undertaking I felt was given to me, but I have refrained from making any comment publicly until I heard from the Solicitor General. The first thing I hear from the Solicitor General is that I am accused of playing games.


Mr. Collenette:: That is not what he said.


David Edward Crombie: I would like him to withdraw it.


Madam Speaker:: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark).

January 27, 1981
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, 1 will defer to the Acting Minister of Justice if he wants to withdraw it.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Well, I do not.


Charles Joseph Clark: He does not want to withdraw the accusation against a member of the House.


David Michael Collenette: Because he did not make one.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, 1 just want to be clear about-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Has the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition asked the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) to withdraw his remarks?


David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: I am speaking to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. Will he repeat what he said? I did not hear it.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I indicated that 1 would be prepared to defer to the Acting Minister of Justice, if such he still is, if he would withdraw the accusation he made against the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie). The Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) has indicated from his seat that he does not intend to withdraw the accusation, so 1 will not defer to him and I will continue.
The only point I rise on is really a point of clarification. The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) indicated that he was raising a matter of privilege that we may want to pursue at a later time.

And in my opinion, it is a really important matter for the parliamentary institution. I should like to be sure that we will be in a position tomorrow or later to pursue the question raised today about the possibility for Parliament to take the word of the Liberal government, because it is fundamental to our parliamentary system. We cannot take the word of a minister in that capacity one week, if it is no longer valid the following week. Parliament would be unable to enact or implement legislation. It is a basic issue.

The reason we have raised the question now is that 1 asked in my questions to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) whether or not there was to be some new set of standards by which we would know when we can accept the word of a minister of the Crown. The Prime Minister responded in a political way, which is fair in this House, and made reference to campaign promises which might be departed from, such as the opposition he once articulated to the imposition of wage and price controls. It is one thing when a party leader and a party abandon or reverse themselves, as they did on the question of wage and price controls. It is quite another thing when a minister of the Crown-sworn to oath as a minister to tell the truth and to speak for the government and sent before a
parliamentary committee to steer a bill through that committee on behalf of the government-serving as an acting minister of the Crown and authorized by order in council, gives representations on which members of Parliament act. Without getting into the specific deliberations of the committee, that is what happened.
A representation was given by the minister on behalf of the government, after he had been introduced as the spokesman of the government and the Acting Minister of Justice. There was a response to that; it changed the behaviour of members of the House of Commons serving in the committee. We accepted his word and we were misled. Madam Speaker, that is precisely what happened. It raises the question now as to when the word of any minister of the Crown is word that the House of Commons can accept.
When will we be faced again with a situation where something is said on Thursday or Friday and then repudiated on Monday night as a result of deliberations, pressures, we know not what, having to do with perhaps other parties, the New Democratic Party and its alliance with the Liberals? Perhaps there were other pressures which were brought to bear. This House cannot function, Madam Speaker, unless we can accept that ministers of the Crown speak the truth, speak for the government when they are guiding matters of government business through a committee of the House of Commons. We cannot function now in a situation such as has been created by the repudiation by the Prime Minister of the Solicitor General in his capacity as Acting Minister of Justice.
The question does not stop here, Madam Speaker. My colleague from Nepean-Carleton raised a very good point when responding to the House business announcement and the request by the government House leader for the agreement of this whole chamber to designate Thursday as a day when we can proceed with the access to information legislation. We voted on that quickly. But will there be a repudiation of what the government House leader said? We have before the House of Commons now, and again in committee-I will only deal with the dispatch of business to that committee by this Parliament-bills and very important legislation dealing with oil and gas matters in this country. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) appears, speaking for the government, before that committee. He gives testimony. Can we believe him? Can we believe what he says? When we vote on a particular bill and go through it clause by clause, can we be sure that the statements made by the minister, which cause members of Parliament to vote one way, will not be repudiated the day after? That is the question which is before us.
We now have had a shadow passed over the capacity of this House to believe the word of a minister of the Crown. And it is not simply a question of one man's reputation, although that is always at stake here. It is a question of the ability of this Parliament to work and to function. We cannot function if one minister speaking for the government one day says one thing, and another minister, speaking on the same question for the
January 27, 198 I

same government the next day, says the opposite thing. We cannot function as a Parliament that way. There will be no progress here, no trust, and no legislation. There will be no respect here. This Parliament cannot function that way.
It is a matter which arose today. It is a matter which we will want to pursue later. I rise now simply to underline the basis of the privilege which, in my judgment, goes to the very root of this Parliament, to our ability to trust ministers, to our ability to transact business, and to our ability to function effectively as the House of Commons. It is a fundamental question and one which I would want the assurance of the Chair we will be able to pursue after we have had the opportunity to consult precedents and the laws of Parliament which apply to this situation.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, 1 should say that the issue involves first a question of fact and then a procedural question. About the facts, I have nothing to add to the reply given by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) during the oral question period or to what the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) has just said in replying to the point of order or the so-called question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). I believe that the facts have been well outlined by members on this side of the House. While the official opposition may not agree with these facts, as everyone knows such disagreement cannot justify a question of privilege.
As for the procedural question, I respectfully submit that it was very difficult for the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton, the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) and the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) to abstain from referring to the committee proceedings as it is quite obvious, Madam Speaker, that their intervention in the House today is based on a definite situation which occurred in committee, which led the committee to vote on a question of privilege and reject it. On the other hand, Madam Speaker, by allowing a debate on this question of privilege, we are obviously-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. minister himself is now referring to the committee proceedings. I would ask him to refrain from doing so.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I simply wished to refer to the rule which prevents us from referring to committee proceedings. That is why I used the word "committee". What the members opposite did was to base a question of privilege on what occurred in a committee. This is quite irregular as we are not supposed to refer in the House in any way to committee proceedings in the absence of a report, and I am simply stating that there is absolutely no other fact resulting from the oral question period today which would justify the Speaker ruling that there has been a breach of privilege affecting all members of this House. I have noted that the Leader of the Official Opposition often says that it is essential to ensure the orderly
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
operation of this House, and I quite agree with him. However, the best way to do so is to start by not raising unfounded questions of privilege.
Madam Speaker, both the experts and our own procedure make it very clear that questions of privilege should be used very rarely. Beauchesne says specifically a question of privilege ought rarely to come up in Parliament. In this case, there has been an attempt to raise an unfounded question of privilege based on what occurred in committee, which is a waste of the time of this House. The Leader of the Official Opposition has given us notice that he might obstruct further the proceedings of the House by saying that he wants to reserve the right to raise the same question of privilege later on.
1 respectfully submit. Madam Speaker, that if you rule today that there is no basis for a question of privilege, this question should not be raised again unless new facts warrant it and justify the request made by the Leader of the Official Opposition, who wants to reserve the right to raise unfounded questions of privilege at any time and delay unduly the proceedings of the House. 1 submit that this is an abuse of our parliamentary rules and will truly prevent Parliament from operating in an orderly manner. If he is sincere when he says he will make every effort to ensure the orderly operation of Parliament, he should first of all refrain from imputing motives to ministers on this side of the House, and in this case to myself, as he did when he tried to question the agreement reached yesterday among House leaders. For his information, even if we changed our mind, the arrangement could not be changed because an order of the House was made today and such an order cannot be changed in parliamentary procedure. That is quite elementary.
Second, the best way to ensure the orderly operation of Parliament is to refrain from imputing motives to hon. members opposite when in good faith we have concluded an agreement which benefits both sides of the House. Third, it is also to refrain from raising unfounded questions of privilege, wasting the time of the House and thus preventing Parliament from discharging its responsibilities.
Given all these considerations, Madam Speaker, I suggest that there is no question of privilege because the point is based on what happened in a committee and that the Leader of the Official Opposition has no reason whatsoever to doubt the agreement which was reached by the parliamentary leaders and which, in any event, has since been made an order of the House that must be respected.


Madam Speaker:: I will take the question under advisement and 1 want to say to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition that although the Chair may take a question under advisement he is not allowed to do so.
If the question of privilege has not been explained to the satisfaction of the Chair this afternoon, I do not believe we can raise it again tomorrow unless the Right Hon. Leader of the

January 27, 1981
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
Official Opposition finds an issue to raise a new question of privilege. If after reading the Votes and Proceedings tomorrow I feel I need additional information then perhaps I will ask one hon. member or another, or even the Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition, to provide me with further details. But 1 can take the question under advisement. Anyone raising a question of privilege on a given day may not continue on the same subject the following day.
In my opinion, therefore, the arguments have been made to the Chair. I will study them, take them under advisement and make a ruling later.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, simply to make myself clear, 1 was seeking the right to consult the Standing Orders and parliamentary precedents relevant to the situation described here today during the question period. In fact the Chair seemed to suggest that we think there is indeed a question of privilege and that we have not had an opportunity here in the House to produce all the evidence, to refer to all precedents which may be available. I took the floor simply to indicate that in all likelihood, after a review tomorrow, we will want to continue debating the question. You have stated that if you have reason to believe that there is in fact a question of privilege, we will be allowed to continue tomorrow. If we were able to establish precedents in support of the rules we want to quote, perhaps we might do so tomorrow before the question period and raise the question of privilege if need be.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition are utterly unbelievable. According to him, he has been trying for half an hour to give you notice of his intention to rise on a question of privilege on some other day. That is unacceptable. The question of privilege has been thoroughly debated and you have stated yourself that you might need additional information after reading Hansard. Fair enough, we accept your ruling. But I think it is pretentious on his part to claim that all the time we have wasted this afternoon was nothing more than notice from the Leader of the Opposition of his intention to seek information and consult the Standing Orders of the House before rising to speak.
In my opinion, Madam Speaker, we have had a full debate and the issue cannot be reopened unless it is on your own initiative.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, as you will recall in my remarks at the outset, I reserved on the matter as well. So there will be no doubt as to why 1 reserve, this is a question of privilege, and I wanted to prepare for your consideration an appropriate motion which usually follows such matters. I think it is only appropriate as well that all members of the House read the "blues" which you, Madam Speaker, have allowed us to do, and quite properly so. That is my
understanding of what you have suggested. It is a common parliamentary courtesy for which we thank you.
I just want to make sure, Madam Speaker, that you understood that I had a reservation as well.


Madam Speaker:: I can tell the hon. member that I noticed that there was no motion attached to the intervention made by the hon. member or by any other hon. member. This often happens. It is a technicality, and I am sure that I would not reject a question of privilege solely on that technicality. Arguments have been presented this afternoon. A question of privilege may not be deferred. If the hon. member would now like to make a motion, I will receive it, and then I will defer my decision on the question of privilege which has been raised.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I could build a motion of privilege on my feet, but 1 have been involved now as House leader, on one side of this House or the other, since 1976. I want to say, with respect to the Chair, that it is not unusual for there to be even consultation among various members in the House from both sides as to what might be an appropriate approach. I would be the first to argue that without a motion before you, Madam Speaker, you could not make a judgment. But since you have indicated that you are prepared to reserve anyway, then I suggest, if it is not inappropriate for you to reserve on the basis which has been set out, that we look into the appropriate form of the motion to be put, in order that you will have before you tomorrow what you regard today as being necessary to complete the proceedings, given the fact that you, Madam Speaker, have reserved on the matter.


Madam Speaker:: 1 have reserved so that 1 may consult the precedent and reflect on the arguments which have been presented to me this afternoon. That is my intention. I really believe that the question of privilege has now been exposed to the Chair. The Chair will now look at the precedents.
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) has said that he wishes to look at the precedents. I would suggest to him that this is the role of the Chair. I will look at the precedents and determine whether there is a basis for a prima facie case of privilege. 1 will rule on the matter later. If hon. members have another question of privilege arising from the deliberations of this House at some other date, relating to the subject today, then they may raise it at a later date. But I cannot allow discussion on the basis that this is merely a notice of a question of privilege and that tomorrow we will discuss the question of privilege. That question of privilege was exposed this afternoon. It is on the basis of the discussion which we have had today, looking into the precedents and referring to the rules, that I will rule later on this question of privilege.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I want to be absolutely clear that your statement is not precluding me or any member of this House from making available to you, before you rule tomorrow, any arguments or precedent that we think might well be drawn to the attention of Chair. Am I correct or incorrect?
January 27, 1981


Madam Speaker:: No. What I am saying now is that 1 have heard the arguments and that I will rule on the basis of the arguments that I have heard. If, as has happened sometimes in this House, someone has a document which the Chair has not seen and it cannot judge on the basis of what was quoted from that document, then the document is sent to the Chair. I guess that would constitute a supplementary or an additional argument, which takes the form of the document given to the Chair so the Chair may review it.
What 1 am saying is that there will be no more discussion on this question of privilege tomorrow. The arguments are being heard today.


MR. TAYLOR-BEHAVIOUR OF PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a new question of privilege. When a number of members of this House reach a decision in a committee and that decision is changed by one man, I feel that it affects the privileges of every member of this House.


Madam Speaker:: Order. It is clear to me that the hon. member is speaking about the same question of privilege. Is he raising a new question of privilege?


Gordon Edward Taylor: Yes.


Madam Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member to be more explicit. The hon. member has referred to "a committee" and "a man"; I must have specifics.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, it is a new question of privilege, and 1 start by saying that when a number of members in a committee reach a decision which is then changed by one man, my privileges as a member are affected.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is referring to proceedings which took place in committee.


Gordon Edward Taylor: No, 1 am not.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member is saying "a
committee".


Gordon Edward Taylor: Any committee.


Madam Speaker:: I do not understand, and I gather that other people do not understand. Would the hon. member be very precise if he is referring to a committee as to whether it is a general matter with regard to a committee or a specific occurrence in a committee?


Gordon Edward Taylor: I want to refer to the committee, and I will be very precise. I feel that my privileges have been affected. The people of Canada and, I believe, the hon. members of this House, are sick and tired of having a dictator such as the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau). I want him to resign. That is what the people want because he is affecting the privileges of every member of this House.


Erik Nielsen: Let's have a referendum on that.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. MacEachen:: Not another one.


Gordon Edward Taylor: The Prime Minister is making our work ineffective if he can change a decision reached by a majority of the members of this House. That is completely unparliamentary. It is the type of thing which goes on in Russia, and it should not go on in Canada.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member has not convinced me that he has a question of privilege. He has made some remarks on behaviour of which he does not approve, and it is perfectly within his right not to approve of the behaviour of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or of any other member of this House. But if the hon. member is raising a question of privilege, he must be very clear as to what way his privileges have been breached, and he has not exposed that to me. So I feel that he did not have a question of privilege.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fourth Report of Standing Committee on Transport-Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi).
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,451, 1,572, 1,676 and 1,702.
Madam Speaker, 1 ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Cossitt: j. Is Sergeant Robert Hutchison a member of the Canadian Armed Forces and, if so (a) on what date did he first enlist and what are the various branches in which he has served (b) has he been a member of the security section and, if so (i) did he assume such a position in 1973 (ii) was he trained in security at Camp Borden among other places?
2.	Was he posted to the Canadian Embassy in Prague in July, 1979, and, if so (a) on what date did he arrive in Prague (b) what was a full description of his duties during his stay in Prague (c) was his immediate superior Colonel Spencer?

January 27, 1981
Order Paper Questions
3.	Did he request that he be returned to Canada in November, 1979, due to a health problem of his daughter and, if so, did he decide to reconsider such a request as a result of being asked to remain in Prague by the Canadian Armed Forces?
4.	Was he advised in January, 1980, by Colonel Spencer that the Canadian Ambassador to Prague had decided to have him return to Canada and, if so, what were the reasons given for such action?
5.	On what dale did he, his wife and daughter leave Prague for Canada and was it on or about May 10, 1980?
6.	On return to Canada was he interrogated on or about May 22, 1980, by the security and intelligence unit of the Department of National Defence and, if so (a) was he questioned on the subject of whether or not he had in any way been in liaison with Russian agents while in Prague (b) did he volunteer to submit to a lie detector test and was this test followed by further interrogation (c) on or about May 23, 1980, was he given a further lie detector test and additional interrogation and was he requested to return on May 27, 1980?
7.	(a) On or about May 27, 1980, did he tell Commander Vallcvand that he had given SIU all possible information and specifically, did he state that he and his family were being harassed and request that it cease (b) on the same date was he given a further lie detector test on orders of Captain Roberts of SIU (c) on the afternoon of the same date was he forced to sit in a small room for over an hour and, if so, for what purpose (d) on the same date did his wife contact legal services of the Canadian Armed Forces asking for assistance and was she refused legal aid and, if so, for what reason?
8.	(a) Since the return to Canada of Sergeant Hutchison and his family, has their telephone been bugged or tapped in any way and, if so, what arc all the details (b) has a military police vehicle been parked in front of their house on a number of occasions since they moved in on May 15, 1980, and were the most recent occasions the evenings of July 11 and July 12, 1980, and, if so, what was the purpose (c) was he informed on July 10. 1980, by Captain Richardson that the investigation would be carried on until November, 1980?
9.	During all of the above incidents, was he frequently asked during interrogation whether he was a Russian agent, whether he had connections with the Russian or Czechoslovakian intelligence and, if so, what are all the details on which the Canadian Armed Forces have based such questions?
10.	If there is no evidence that Sergeant Hutchison did collaborate with Russian Intelligence, for what reason is he being frequently interrogated, etc. and will the Minister of National Defence order a full investigation into all aspects of this situation?
11.	Was Sergeant Hutchison at one time visited by an RCMP officer named McLean since he returned to Canada and did an approximate two-hour discussion take place and what was the purpose of the discussion?
12.	Is there in existence a written memo signed by Anne Scott, a Canada Customs inspector, concerning Sergeant Hutchison and, if so, is it dated June 11, 1980, and does it state in part: "Superintendent Hatherall called the office to inform us that the Military Police had a lookout on Sergeant Hutchison, he was involved in some dealings with the (blank)" and, if so, on what basis did Superintendent Hatherall make such a call?
13.	(a) Is there in existence a report headed "Rough Report" by J. Smith in regard to Sergeant Hutchison and compiled by a Canada Customs official and does it state in part, "... suspected that he might have been in liaison with the Russians" and that he was a "cagey, conniving type of person and that he might be up to something" (b) subsequently was he charged $479.68 (Canadian) duty by Canada Customs for alleged items brought back from Europe (c) was he charged for two stereo speakers purchased for 489 German marks on the basis of $489 rather than actually converting to Canadian dollars (d) was he charged duty on other items without conversion of currency taking place and, if so, what were they (e) was he given the impression or told by Canadian diplomatic officials that any items purchased abroad prior to six months before his return to Canada would be duty free?
14.	Does the Department of National Defence follow the policy that a person is not guilty until proven otherwise?
15.	During his stay in Prague, was Sergeant Hutchison of considerable service to Canada or any member of the Western Alliance by the duties he performed there?
16.	Is it the intention of the government or the Canadian Armed Forces to charge Sergeant Hutchison as an agent for a foreign power and allow him a court martial before which he could defend himself and (a) if so, on what date
(b) if not, will any alleged harassment, character assassination, etc. against him and his family cease forthwith?


David Michael Collenette: 1 am informed by the Departments of External Affairs, National Defence, National Revenue and the Solicitor General as follows:
1.	Yes.
(a)	April 13, 1964,
Supply and Security Branches.
(b)	Yes.
(i)	Yes.
(ii)	Yes.
2.	Yes.
(a)	July 20, 1979,
(b)	Administrative duties in the Canadian Forces Attaches office.
(c)	Yes.
3.	No. In November, 1979, he told the Canadian Forces Attache that he was considering asking for permission to send his family home but intended to remain in Prague himself. After discussions with the Attache regarding this matter he reconsidered his situation and after a short interval advised the Attache that he would like to remain in Prague with his family. His personal decision was accepted by the Attache and the Ambassador.
4.	Yes. Medical reasons.
5.	Yes.
6.	He was interviewed on return to Canada as part of a routine security debriefing.
(a)	No. He was questioned in regard to his dealings with Czechoslovakian authorities.
(b)	Yes to both parts of the question.
(c)	Yes to which he readily agreed.
7.	(a) Yes.
(b)	No. He underwent voluntary polygraph examination.
(c)	No. He sat in a large comfortable furnished room awaiting the arrival of the case officer who was 32 minutes late returning from a meeting with his supervisors. While he waited, the room door was open, he was advised there would be a delay and was provided with reading material.
(d)	On or about May 27, 1980, Mrs. Hutchison contacted a legal officer in the office of the Judge Advocate General by telephone at which time she requested advice concerning a legal matter involving her husband. The legal officer explained that she was not entitled to be given legal aid by him because she was not a member of the Canadian Forces. However, the legal officer did state that her husband, as a member of the Canadian Forces,
January 27, 1981

might be entitled to receive legal aid but that it would be necessary for the member to contact the legal officer directly. The legal officer also explained that if she urgently required legal advice, she should contact a civilian lawyer, at which time she indicated she already had done so.
8.	(a) No.
(b)	No.
(c)	No. He was informed that the investigation could continue until November, 1980.
9.	No references were made to Russian agents.
10.	Regarding instituting an investigation this has already begun. Sergeant Hutchison has instituted "redress of grievance" procedure within this department, and this automatically causes an investigation to be carried out.
11.	The policy of the RCMP is to maintain the confidentiality of names of people they contact during the course of their inquiries. This policy extends to identifying members of the RCMP, the purpose and length of any ensuing discussion.
12.	Yes, such a memo exists and Superintendent Hatherall made the call as a result of a telephone call from his immediate superior.
13.	(a) Yes.
(b)	Yes.
(c)	Yes. As an explanation, the Inspector concerned asked Mrs. Hutchison if the two speakers were paid in Canadian or German funds, and the answer received was "Canadian". On this basis, the 489.99 was utilized as a value for duty. We now realize that perhaps the 489.99 D.M. could have been converted to Canadian dollar value and the bill paid in Canadian currency on the converted amount. A refund claim would be in order.
(d)	Yes. As follows-one pair of headphones and $33.98 in lieu of D.M. 33.98 (same explanation as in (c) above).
(e)	No members of staff of the Canadian Embassy in Prague recall a conversation with Sergeant Hutchison on Canadian Customs regulations. However, a copy of Revenue Canada's booklet "Moving Back to Canada" received by the Embassy from the Department of External Affairs on January 7, 1980, was circulated to all Canada-based staff including Sergeant Hutchison, who initialled the covering form as having seen this document. The booklet states in part "if you have been residing outside Canada for anything from the one-year minimum to just under five years, your personal and household effects must have been in your ownership, possession and use for at least six months before you re-enter Canada".
Order Paper Questions
15.	His performance of his duties at the Canadian Embassy in Prague was considered fully satisfactory.
16.	Only if investigation establishes that a charge is warranted. (a) (b) In view of the above-not applicable.


Mr. Howie: What amount of government funds has been allocated for research into the causes and treatments of cancer?


Mr. Doug Frith (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: In so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned: funds allocated for research into causes and treatment of cancer during the fiscal year 1980-81 amount to $2,630,140. This sum excludes salaries of professionals conducting intramural research.
In so far as the Medical Research Council is concerned: to date, for the fiscal year 1980-81, $5,100,000 has been committed to research and research training to causes and treatment of cancer.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was Mr. Jean-Claude L'Espcrance appointed general manager of the Canada Council touring office and, if so (a) on what date (b) what were his qualifications (c) did he resign on or about October 22, 1980, and, if so, for what
reasons?
2.	Did Mr. John Cripton and Mr. Michael Tabbitt leave the employ of the Canada Council touring office and, if so (a) on what dates (b) to the knowledge of the government, did they go into a private tour management business with Mr. Sam Gesser (c) have they sought any business from the council since leaving and, if so, what are all the details?


Mr. Peter Stollery (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: I am informed by the Canada Council that the reply to the above question is as follows:
1.	Yes.
(a)	August 15, 1980.
(b)	Mr. L'Esperance has extensive experience in the world of theatre and in the organization of tours. He had worked as stage manager for the Theatre du Rideau Vert and le Theatre du Nouveau Monde. He was assistant technical director at Man and His World in 1969 and in 1970. In 1976, he became General Manager of Kebec Spec where he was actively involved in establishing a touring network.
(c)	Yes, the reason for resignation is personal.
2.	Yes.
(a)	April 25, 1980.
(b)	It is general knowledge that Messrs. Cripton and Tabbitt, together with Mr. Sam Gesser, formed a private tour management business.
(c)	This firm has neither sought nor received any business from the Canada Council. However, since leav-
14.	Yes.

January 27, 198 I
Income Tax Act
ing the Canada Council, Mr. Cripton has received honoraria and expenses in the total amount of $725.50 as a consultant, to assist in the completion of certain projects (unrelated to his firm) with which he had been familiar as general manager of the touring office.


Mr. Herbert: Has consideration been given to making optional the receipt of old age pension benefits for persons between the age of 65 and 70 and, if so, what are the financial implications?


Royce Herbert Frith: Provision exists now for delaying the date of receipt of Old Age Security as qualified persons can apply to receive the pension at anytime after the age of 65. Payments can be retroactive for a period of 12 months only. Persons who are eligible for a partial OAS pension may actually increase their potential OAS benefits by delaying application. This is already being done on an optional basis.
[ Translation]


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 54, 1 do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of the Whole.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, January 26, consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bill C-54, an act to amend the statute law relating to income tax-Mr. MacEachen-Mr. Francis in the chair.
On Clause 1 -
The Chairman:: When the committee rose last evening Clause 1 of the bill was under consideration and the hon. member for Peterborough had the floor.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Chairman, I shall be addressing my remarks on the bill before us in regard to income tax, to the Minister of Finance. In the three or four minutes before adjournment last night I prefaced my remarks with an expression of the concern the people of Canada have about the direction the government is taking, through the implementation of legislation in this House, that is adversely affecting the business community in Peterborough and other areas of the country.
The Income Tax Act shows a lack of concern on the part of the government for some of the promises and commitments it made in the last election campaign. In this bill we had looked forward to changes that would bring about a positive direction in addressing the needs of the small business community, those entrepreneurs of Canada who contribute 28 per cent of the gross national product of this country. What I am suspicious about is that the government's policies on energy and finance as reflected in the income tax legislation are searching for the means to derive income to offset its excessive expenditures.
In the last election campaign the Liberal government committed itself to holding down growth in the public sector, in the civil service to a point that would not exceed the growth in the gross national product. It has betrayed that election commitment. It has sat idly and watched the cost of government soar above 12Vi per cent in its short time in office, while the gross national product has only increased to something in excess of 11 per cent. That leaves the government with no alternative but to look to income taxes, corporation taxes and other means of levying these charges against the areas of our country that are moving gradually from a free enterprise system into a more socialistic form of government, with the emphasis on public ownership. This can only lead to disaster.
This government is so inconsiderate, as I pointed out last night, with its 3 per cent inventory allowance to the small business community that it has not taken into consideration that when this provision which appears on page 28 of the bill, was first conceived by the government the inflation rate was 6 or 7 per cent and interest rates were perhaps 11, 12 or 13 per cent. Since then, and since the budget three short months ago, interest rates have increased 39 per cent, and the dollar today is at its lowest level in 47 years. We all optimistically looked to the government to introduce measures in income tax legislation that would offer some relief to the business community to cover the high cost of inventory.
Another area of concern affecting the business community appears on page 33 of the bill in the clause which relates to cash accounting. Farmers have always been able to show as income in any given year only the amount of dollars that they received. That has now been extended to the fishing communities as well. 1 say to hon. members opposite that if they were sincere in the commitment made in the last election campaign to the small business people of Canada, that cash accounting clause would be extended to cover all entrepreneurs in Canada so that they would not be required to pay corporation or business taxes on sales in December at the end of their calendar year, on money that might not be received until well into the new year. In other words, businesses would not be required, as fishermen and farmers are not, to pay income tax until the cash was received. The government could have shown some compassion or concern about the lack of cash flow in the
January 27, 1981

business community today and could have extended the cash accounting clause on page 33 of the bill, to the small business community.
1 should like now to discuss the Income Tax Act as it pertains to capital gains tax. It will never cease to amaze me that a government, which says it has credibility with the agricultural community of this country, can tell farmers of the second, third or fourth generation that when a farm is sold, the capital gains on the acquisition of a farm from the father- who in many cases received it from his grandfather-must be declared as a liability. This shows a lack of compassion and concern for the agricultural community-a lack of concern for the business community as well.
The Conservative government at least said that it would allow the transfer to a registered retirement savings plan of the capital gains derived from the transfer of a farm to a member of the family.
The Minister of Finance comes from an agricultural community. 1 would ask him what is to happen to a lot of young farmers today who are being driven from the farm by such measures? They lose the farm because of the necessity of paying capital gains tax. Often this is not paid at the time of the sale but some years ahead when they have to liquidate. In other words, they find themselves deeper in the hole because if they could keep the farm they might find they would eventually have to sell it in order to pay the tax. Sometimes they have to move off the farm because it is not profitable.
Another area which shows a lack of compassion in Bill C-54 relates to the volunteer firemen in small communities across Canada. The Conservative budget would have allowed them a tax deduction of $1,000 but this bill only allows $500 to volunteer firemen in communities where they offset a cost of municipal and provincial governments by offering their services to fight fires. The $500 is totally inadequate and shows a lack of compassion and concern for the local level.
Members of the government often talk about the Small Business Development Bond. What did they do about it when they took office? The people of Canada should know that this bond will expire at the end of March, but the government does not care enough about making that money available to the business community to allow it at least to flow for one calendar or fiscal year. I challenge the Minister of Finance to stand in this House and give us one example of a business that has borrowed on the development bond principle without conditions being imposed by the trust company, bank or lending institution-conditions providing that should the government not implement the policy, the small businessman will borrow at the going rate, will continue to pay the going rate and will not benefit from the bond issue. How much confidence can the banking institutions of Canada have in a government that offers a 90-day government bond issue as is done in Bill C-54?
I should like to ask the Minister of Finance now why this bill discriminates between men and women. Why should separated men not be allowed to claim child care expenses without first obtaining a legal separation, while women can? I thought
Income Tax Act
the Liberal government considered all persons equal. Why does this government discriminate between separated men and women? I asked this government, and I asked the Minister of Finance what do they have against single parents by not allowing them to claim child care expenses?
I asked the Minister of Finance why this government fails to recognize common-law couples on income tax returns. What does the Minister of Finance have against common law arrangements? Does the Minister of Finance not realize that common-law marriages exist in Canada today? Does the Minister of Finance not realize there is a moral obligation on the part of both partners to such an agreement? Is there not a moral obligation on the part of government to recognize that these people exist? Are these people not citizens? Are these people not Canadians, and are they not entitled to equal treatment? What does the Minister of Finance have to say about that?
In addition, what does this government have against allowing a dependent spouse allowance? Why does the government discriminate on the basis of marriage? Is the Minister of Finance creating two classes of couples? Is he creating different classes of citizens just as he is doing with the metric system by allowing the citizens of Peterborough to opt out? But to the other 33 cities of Canada he tells their citizens that they must operate under the metric system. So he is creating different classes of citizens, just as we have different classes of provinces in the constitution. Even if the Minister of Finance stands up in this House and defends these positions, I do not know whether I can believe him. He has broken his election commitments. The commitments of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce were broken. He said that if interest rates rose when he took office and he was in the cabinet, he would resign. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce still sits in this House. He has never resigned.
Bill C-54 is totally irresponsible. It is not a credit to the government. It is a sham to this Parliament. If the government does not address some of its commitments made in the last election campaign, dealing with small business and the citizens of Canada, the day will come a lot sooner than it expects when the citizens of Canada might say that they know best and it is not the Prime Minister of Canada who knows what is best for Canadians.


Mr. Kempling:: Mr. Chairman, I have a few points to make on Bill C-54. I am a practising small businessman, aside from being a member of Parliament. I thought that if I brought the practical view to the Minister of Finance he might find it useful.
I think there are some serious structural problems in the small business sector in particular. The small businessman is in a real financial bind. The manufacturer in marketing his product is saddled with unbelievable costs. For instance, the cost of travel in Canada is one of the highest in the world. He is pressed to pay wage levels equal to or higher than large industry, and he must deal with competition from outside
6608

January 27, 1981
Income Tax Act
Canada. The small businessman is quite prepared to do this providing he has a quid pro quo, or providing certain structural changes are made. The large and growing service industry has similar problems, but they are cast in a slightly different way.
Competition tends to bracket the gross profit of the service industries within certain upper and lower limits. When costs beyond the control of the small businessman squeeze profit to the extent that the bottom line, or the net profit, shrinks below acceptable levels, then the businessman is in very serious trouble.
Most of these companies are either owner-operated or are private companies with a small number of investors. They cannot go to the market, so to speak, for venture capital. If there is a sustained downturn in the economy, in many cases they just cannot survive without some extraordinary financial assistance. Many go into bankruptcy, as current statistics prove. If you examine the expense items of the average small business, you will see a dramatic upward change in items such as municipal taxes, business tax, Bell telephone rates, bank interest charges, insurance rates, unemployment insurance rates, workmen's compensation, extended health care rates, and so on. These are charges which the businessman cannot control in any realistic way. Add to that the cost of heating a plant, transportation, and the unbelievable cost of travel, as I have mentioned, and you begin to get an idea of the dimension of the problem.
Observers on the outside could easily say that they should increase their investment. However, to that kind of a question the businessman answers, "Where do I get the money?" Most small businesses have very little leverage in the money market. With the ever-increasing push of inflation, the original investment in constant dollars is dramatically reduced in current value. The cost of borrowing money is at an all time high. The question is: where does the small businessman go for additional capital?
In fact the small businessman asks, "What did I do wrong? In good faith I have invested money in a business venture, I have employed people, I have paid my taxes and I have complied with the many regulations which have cost me untold hours of unnecessary work." Yet many small businessmen now face the possibility of becoming casualties through no fault of their own. The fault is both through poorly-thought-out government policy, and the bureaucracy which taxes and taxes beyond the ability of many small businessmen to pay.
As a remedy the ministry has suggested doing another study. There have been so many studies done that this is absolutely ludicrous. If anyone wants studies on small business, they need only talk to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business or other such organizations which will give them the results they have. The problems are known, the solutions are known, but nothing happens. We hear only that more studies will be done, more press releases issued, and more pious speeches will be made about how great the small business sector is and how important it is.
As I see it, there are some solutions. I am not one to stand up and lambaste the government without offering some solutions. Many times members opposite ask what we would do. I will give the minister some suggestions. Maybe he will like them and maybe he won't. As I see it, the solution to much of the paper work which comes through the average business is just to separate it. If it pertains to taxes, you have to pay your taxes. There is no way out of that. If it is other unnecessary things, I say buy a rubber stamp which says "non-applicable" and send whatever it is back to the appropriate department. Just tell them that you do not have the time.
If the Metric Commission comes to your retail store or plant and orders you to buy a new metric scale when you feel you do not need it, tell them where to go, and challenge them to take you to court and make their case before a judge, as they did in Peterborough. I understand there they padlocked scales and doors and so forth. I think it is time that the small business sector said, "No more. Do what you will, but we are not going to have any more".
I come now to the area of research and development. Does anyone in the ministry really know what closes down an R and D project in a small business? It is not the lack of ideas. It is not the lack of market sense. It is not the lack of ingenuity or inventiveness. It is simply the lack of money, Mr. Chairman. 1 know this is the situation because I have heard it from numerous businessmen with whom I have associated. They get a bright idea, they get it going, and then it is just closed down. The fellow who closes down the R and D project in a small business is usually the guy who handles the money, namely, the comptroller, the bookkeeper, the treasurer, or whoever he is. He just says, "Look, fellows, the way things are we just haven't got the money to complete this project".
Most of the products that will be sold in 1990 have not yet been put down on paper. They are ideas running around in someone's head. If the businessman finds the money that will allow him to produce, you may have a new product that will employ people and contribute to the economy. If he does not, that product or one similar to it will be imported from some other country which has a business sector less fettered by government than this one is.
I want to make another comment about nationalization and to read a quotation sent to me by one of my constituents. The quotation is from The Metal Bulletin of December 16, 1980. It is a speech given by Sir Richard Marsh, minister of power at the time of the second state takeover of the steel industry in Britain. He said this:
Looking back, I regret the nationalization of steel as one of the most disastrous things I have done in my life. If I had not fought for the nationalization of steel, the British economy would not be in the mess it is in today.
I offer that as some advic: to those who feel we must go on with Canadianization, nationalization, or whatever you want to call it. It is a dangerous route to follow.
Let me get back to some solutions I want to suggest to the minister. Small businessmen should be allowed to create a reserve for research and development from taxes payable to the federal government. It could be handled somewhat like an
January 27, 1981

RRSP investment that they could draw down to start a research and development project. The Small Businesses Loans Act should be amended to allow loans required to complete a research and development project. When these things start off, you never know where they are going to end. The Small Businesses Loans Act should be used to register a patent or purchase technology. It would be advantageous in the Canadian market. Small Business Development Bonds should be extended to cover a ten-year period rather than the five years now proposed. The regulation should be amended to allow it to be used as a form of refinancing for businessmen who are being bled dry by high interest rates.
The members of the New Democratic Party talk about the position of the banks in connection with the Small Business Development Bond. I do not care if it gives the bank a special tax position. I want to see more people survive in the troubled times we are facing. I want to see the small business sector have a measure of hope that it can continue to contribute to the economy of this country, to the labour market and the revenue required to operate this very diverse nation. We will in the course of this debate propose amendments which will try to achieve some of these objectives.
I want to say a few more words about regulations. 1 have heard the comments of the chairman of the parliamentary committee which looked into the regulatory system of this government. I am distressed at the continuous thrust of regulations and the desire of the bureaucracy to control everything. Can you think of anything more depressing than going to someone in Finance or Industry to get their approval for your project? It does not happen that way. You get an idea, you want to pursue it, you know the market, and you are looking for money. I hope the minister will take this thought of an RRSP idea for research and development and run it around in his mind because it has a great deal of merit. I can assure him of that.
I do not know whether anyone here has ever been confronted by a bureaucrat with a book of regulations, laying on you an error you have made. He tells you how big brother can fine you, and the sanctions he can impose against you. If you tell him you are not aware of the regulations, he says that does not matter. He will tell you that the governor in council passed a regulation on such and such a day and it was published in The Canada Gazette. You would think that all Canadians on Sunday morning, instead of going to church, get the latest issue of The Canada Gazette to see whether they are complying with all these regulations.
I hope, in looking at the report of the committee, that some consideration will be given to a method of appeal, a review board, or something of that nature. When these regulations come in, they would not then impact immediately upon the business community. There would be a time-frame which would give the businessman an opportunity to adjust, whether it be his inventory or whatever it might be. It does not need to be imposed on him right away. There should be an appeal route he can follow in order to redress what he may think is wrong.
Income Tax Act
I will give a recent example in my constituency. A small businessman had a $10,000 inventory of California bark brought in from the United States. It had passed through customs. He had paid the duty, sales tax and so forth. He had been selling this merchandise in the normal way until someone walked in from the consumer and corporate affairs fraud division.
This small businessman was told he could no longer sell the California bark because the Imperial measure is illegal and fraudulent. Can you imagine that? The official impounded the $10,000 inventory. It is ludicrous.
The small businessman said he would call his member of Parliament. The official laughed in his face, saying, "Those guys can't do anything. You are wasting your time. Your inventory is impounded." The businessman told the official that his supplier was just using up old inventory and the next shipment would be metric measure. The official said that did not matter, the $10,000 inventory was being impounded. When the businessman asked what he should do with it, the official told him that was his problem, not the department's, and walked away.
Immediately after the official left, a customer came in and asked to buy 15 cubic feet of California red bark. The businessman called me on the telephone to see what he should do. I told him to sell the whole works and, if the official came back, to tell him to take the case to court. I do not think a judge in a court in this land would convict someone of fraud for selling Imperial measure. That is bordering on stupidity.
That is only one of the problems that small businessmen face in the regulatory process. 1 commend the committee for the work it has done. I have not read the report yet. I look forward to being involved in it because I think 1 can make a contribution.
The small business community has much to offer. There is much it can do to alleviate unemployment and help the growth in our economy. Some mechanism must be found to relieve the problem of the high cost of money. Lowering the interest rate 1 or 2 per cent will not be of much help. We must look at their original investment in terms of constant dollars to see what that investment is today.
Where is the small businessman to get the money to continue to operate his business? He cannot afford to pay 17, 18 or 19 per cent interest. I know of many businessmen who do not lay off their employees when the market turns down. It is hard to believe the stability they impart to our economy. When the market turns down, they find something for these people to do. They know the value of good employees and how hard it is to find them.
Small business offers constant employment. It offers employees all the fringe benefits offered by large industry. Small businessmen need some relief in the form of low-cost capital, and I do not mean government loans. As I said, the Small Business Development Bond should be extended from five years to ten. The whole damned thing should be amended. It is not worth anything the way it is now written.

January 27, 1981
Income Tax Act
If the minister will accept the suggestion for research and development of an RRSP concept, allowing business to accumulate an amount of money to draw on in order to complete research and development programs, and allow the Small Businesses Loans Act to supplement that, he will be taking a dramatic step forward in assisting the small business sector of our economy.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to take a few minutes to make some remarks about some of the relationships between Indian communities and taxation legislation. I can certainly identify with the remarks of the preceding speaker concerning the impediments of the bureaucracy, red tape and regulations, and his example of a community which suffers to the nth degree because of this problem.
First, in relation to income tax I would like to raise some points. It is the understanding that the purpose of this legislation is to raise funds for the provision of government services, and the basic principle upon which the legislation is based is that it should ensure that the burden falls fairly, and through the progressive system the philosophy is expressed in that direction. But equally, the benefits should be distributed in an equitable manner.
In order to make my case today I would like to select one example of a community in my riding with which I am familiar. It is the Bella Bella Indian community and I want to explore some of the implications of the legislation. The reason I have chosen Bella Bella is that it is a unique case, but the circumstances would clearly apply to at least most other Indian communities in the areas I am familiar with, and most of the proposals I will put forward certainly would apply to many low-income Canadians in this country.
Just as a bit of background for a moment, the community of Bella Bella has a population of 1,200 people, living at a place called Campbell Island, 250 miles northwest of Vancouver. Historically the income of that community has been based on the fishing industry. Many Indians were fishermen in former times. Two very large canneries that consumed a very large amount of labour were based at Klemtu and Namu and there was a very large number of people involved in this seasonal activity.
1 would just like to read some of the facts and figures relating to Indian communities very similar to Bella Bella, specifically in terms of employment data in those communities. Alkali Lake is rated to have between 80 per cent and 95 per cent unemployment; Babine Lake 50 per cent to 85 per cent unemployment, and so it goes on and on down the page. Soda Creek, for example, which is very near the Bella Bella area, has 65 per cent to 100 per cent unemployment.
When talking about the equitable distribution of services I will just take a moment to make a comment on education. About 60 per cent of Indian people have an education of grade nine or less. In terms of violent deaths, Indian communities lead Canada and any population group within Canada in the
number of violent deaths. On and on the story goes, no matter what problem we may be discussing.
This community of Bella Bella of which I speak has a number of difficulties, but one of the problems I speak of today is that there are very few opportunities to earn income. The economy is based on the salmon fishing industry. Native Indians have had their boats removed, and major canneries which provided a major source of employment have been closed.
By and large the management of the fisheries in this area on the west coast is chaotic. There are very short periods of openings, and the mismanagement of habitat and what not has ensured that there are very few fish, and those fish available are not available for commercial income activities, but available only for spawning. For two years there has been no herring fishery in the area.
What is required is some initiative on the part of the government to become involved in helping these people balance the economy. The first suggestion which has been put forward is that those Indian communities should be allowed access to tree farm licences. In the off season when fishing is not the main activity, employment could be created by logging. For years they have been denied access, except on an experimental basis, to the timber in order to undertake logging and increase employment.
The next suggestion on how to improve the income-earning potential of many of these communities is that the government should increase its spending on salmon enhancement projects. At this time on the central coast where reduction in stocks is very severe, the government could do a great service to the people of this and other communities by increasing spending on salmon enhancement programs. Not only would this increase a very valuable resource in that area where it is badly depleted, it would provide substantial employment for Indian people in that region. This would be a very valuable activity in expanding employment opportunities as well as increasing a valuable resource.
Another area in which government spending could be improved, and in the long-term increase the income-earning potential of Indian people within this community, is in expanding educational facilities. It is very interesting that this particular Indian community has been battling with the federal government for years trying to get it to approve a school project. They operate a school district, but the Indian affairs department says Indian people are not entitled to the same kinds of benefits that other children in British Columbia enjoy because the guidelines are substantially lower. When that department takes our number of students and compares it to the number of students in a public school, it allocates 13,000 square feet less of usable space on a given population. Over a period of time all educational facilities are reduced in this sense. What there has to be before you can find the people to manage businesses and look after enterprises in these communities is an educational system so the managers can develop.
January 27, 1981

Again government spending on educational programs, particularly the one in Bella Bella at this time, is imperative if the next generation is to improve in these communities. It is vital that this occur.
I do not want to elaborate on the condition of housing. We have noted for a number of weeks the Prime Minister making very worth-while tours examining the problems of disparity throughout the world in terms of the North-South dialogue they are attempting to develop. But I would suggest one of the most eloquent visual things that could happen would be for the Prime Minister to take a trip to a number of Indian communities. The thing that jumps right out at you is the degree of housing. There has to be a massive infusion of money in order to bring Indian community housing up to an acceptable level. We have heard horror stories in this House about the lack of running water, homes that need rehabilitation, and on and on. Spending on housing is vitally important. Housing is at a level that would not be acceptable in other communities in Canada or to other groups. There would be people lined up for miles outside this door screaming if other people had to live in the kind of housing that Indian communities are asked to accept.
Let me refer to postal service. This community of 1,200 people operates a school district, seven businesses, including a store, a shipbuilding enterprise, and a bulk fuel plant, but has mail service only three days a week, and sometimes less because of weather conditions. The Post Office will never tell the air carrier when and how much mail is to be flown in, and quite often the mail is bumped. This band handles millions of dollars in administration. The school district handles large amounts of money and records, as do the other businesses, and the situation is absolutely chaotic. There is no bank in that community, consequently every transaction has to be moved back and forward. We have to ensure that the money we are spending on government service is spent in such a way that they obtain equitable services, especially in the area of postal service.
1 was disappointed to hear the Postmaster General say that for 17 cents he was doing a great job delivering mail to such a remote community. By air service it is not that far away. 1 hope at a future meeting with officials of his department we can resolve this situation.
The most important area where government spending is vital, if it is going to build an income base or a good economy in the community and provide the people who live there with a decent standard of living, is transportation. No economy can be developed without reasonable transportation. There are two methods of transportation to that community, one is by water and the other is by air, and both are in a chaotic state right now.
At the present time the British Columbia Ferry System operate a ferry to and from Bella Bella on its way to Prince Rupert. In the summer, they curtail their activities because it is more important to carry tourists. The rest of the year, if there are less than 20 passengers, they will not stop and they will not allow freight to be carried to and from that community because it would compete with other forms of transporta-
Income Tax Act
tion. By and large, the government clearly discriminates against this community because other communities are entitled to carry freight on trailers.
1 believe that a roll-on roll-off ferry should be built there so that those people can reduce the cost of freight, the cost of living and the cost of doing business in that community so as to create more viable businesses and to create business opportunities. For a number of years the provincial government of British Columbia has led these people to believe the ferry will be built, but it has never kept its promise. The federal government provides a subsidy to that province for an adequate ferry service, and yet we never see it delivered. I understand the Minister of Transport has currently under way a study evaluating transportation on the west coast, and this input is vital.
No money should be paid on that coast unless it is for specific guaranteed programs under which communities, such as Bella Bella, will have the same access as other communities of a similar size, such as Ocean Falls, to a roll-on roll-off ramp, the ability to carry freight, and regular stops. That is imperative. It is clear discrimination against an Indian community, and this government is a party to it. The federal government must supply funds and must ensure that adequate service is available to these people. It is the only logical way of guaranteeing the federal investment which is already being put in there. Without a transportation base, that investment is lost.
Government red tape, bureaucracy and regulations are best epitomized in the air transportation service to that community. There are two small islands there. One is Campbell Island, with a population of 1,200 Indian people, and the other, half a mile away, is Denny Island, with 50 people who essentially live off the Indian community. The Department of Transport was asked to do a site evaluation for an airport in the central coast region. The two sites were, of course, Denny Island with 50 people, and Campbell Island with 1,200 Indian people. What happened was that the government said that both sites are technically acceptable, but it will not make the decision; the responsibility is that of the province of British Columbia. The province of British Columbia said it was the federal government's responsibility-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Chairman, 1 rise on a point of order. I have been listening carefully to the hon. member for Comox-Powell River and I find that he has yet to mention the Income Tax Act. He has spoken about the Post Office, about the ferry boat service, about bureaucracy in general-all points on which I agree with him-he has spoken about the herring fishery, but he has yet to talk about the Income Tax Act. If we are ever to get through this bill, we cannot continue to go on with member after member talking about everything under the sun but the income tax.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The hon. member's point is very well taken. The Chair has attempted to enforce the rule of relevance with, I might add, a singular lack of success on both sides of the

January 27, 1981
Income Tax Act
House. 1 invite the hon. member who has the floor to take note of the remarks of the hon. member for Mississauga South.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Chairman, I am aware of the fact that my preamble is somewhat lengthy, but I would remind the hon. member that I did mention the income tax at the beginning of my remarks. However, in all seriousness I am coming to the point quickly. 1 would just like to mention some of the services which are required by people in order to earn their income. We are talking about legislation which removes taxation in an area, and our purpose is to provide services. I will come to the point in just a moment, but I beg your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, to allow me to continue.
I was speaking about the economy of this area and the problem which the government has in assisting people to build up the local economy. In this case the government has the responsibility to designate that airport. The hon. member for Burlington spoke at great length about small businesses. Let me point out that this community is attempting to establish small businesses and to employ people locally. Without an airport this will not happen, and the seven businesses which are in place will disappear.
The basic problem is that on the other island where there are 50 people an airport is already in progress and government funding may be allocated there. There is a great danger that in the future the 50 people in that community might find that bankruptcies will drive everyone away from that area. What we have is a government funded airport, and 1,200 people on another island being forced to depend on that. The hospital is located on Campbell Island and so is the RCMP, and the total population is being made to suffer because of the totally inadequate transportation system.
At the beginning of my remarks I intended to speak briefly on this subject. I listened to hon. members preceding me make speeches about small business. Having laid the groundwork, 1 will reserve my remarks relating to the Income Tax Act to other clauses. Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Siddon:: Mr. Chairman, 1 certainly noted your tolerance with respect to the previous speaker. 1 will try to be somewhat more relevant in addressing my remarks to some of the injustices and difficulties which my constituents have experienced with the income tax system. I wish to put forward in particular a few ideas which might emerge in the form of amendments as the committee proceeds to the clause by clause debate on Bill C-54.
However, 1 cannot help but observe, in reacting to the previous speaker, that here we have a party which is apparently intent on enhancing opportunities on behalf of small businesses and its members pretend to advocate increased government attention to small business, yet at the same time they are saying that ownership, and the enjoyment of ownership of property should be denied-


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I should like to call attention to the hon. member who has the
floor that we do not pretend to support small business. In my area, the government of which he was a member-


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The hon. member for Richmond-South Delta has the floor. The hon. member for Comox-Powell River had his opportunity to make a speech and he can do so again, if he wishes, later.


Thomas Edward Siddon: 1 do appreciate the latitude which you, Mr. Chairman, granted the previous speaker. It is of interest to note that that party, which pretends to advocate support for small business, is intent on denying Canadians, along with their pet sheep across the way, the enjoyment and the ownership of property. They know full well, on a matter that is currently before the House and high in the minds of all of us, that the concerns of the provinces, including the province of Prince Edward Island, could have been accommodated by the same kinds of "notwithstanding" clauses or limitations which are inserted in the constitutional resolution in relation to a number of other special rights and privileges that have been granted.
1 am also impressed by the implications of this tendency to nationalization on the whole of our country and its economy. That includes the income tax system. If the NDP and their pet sheep have their way, we will not need to have an income tax system. We will be able to dispense with this very tedious Bill C-54 as well as with the Income Tax Act because there will be no income being earned, the resources of the country will be allotted by the central government, no one will get any pay, and favours will be dispensed in the form of patronage to friends of the party in office. That is how it works in Russia. I have been there and seen it. Those who are good workers for the Communist party get all the breaks, and the rest live like serfs. There is no need to pay income tax or to concern oneself with an income tax act.
Before I leave this subject I would just like to quote a statement which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is reported to have made in Alberta on the weekend. Apparently the minister said this:
"Provinces don't own resources like your own home", Lalonde explained to one group at Bonnyville. "And provinces don't own the resources the way Libya and Saudi Arabia own theirs."
That can be coupled with the courtship between the party on my left and the party opposite in relation to the question of private ownership of property. I might go beyond including ownership of title to land by also including ownership of businesses, homes, automobiles and everything in our society. 1 submit that these members of Parliament are directing the country toward a new system of government in which we will not need an Income Tax Act and we will not have to spend long hours, as we are today, trying to achieve equity and fairness for the free citizens of this country, at least those who considered themselves to be free until the advent of the current constitutional debate.
January 27, 1981

Merely by reading clause 1 of this bill, one is struck by its complexities. 1 do not intend to go into all the complexities of the bill, as my colleague from southern Alberta did last night when he referred to and read from Bill C-54 some of its complicated jargon which puts innocent taxpayers at a tremendous disadvantage in dealing with the government. But in turning to clause 1, 1 should like to point out that there is an ambiguity in the wording which I hope will be amended. The form in clause 1 is changed from the form in the Income Tax Act where the exceptions were placed in brackets.
If one reads clause 1(1 )(a), one learns that income includes "the value of board, lodging and other benefits of any kind whatever, except any benefit", and if one excludes subclauses (i) and (ii), "that was received or enjoyed by him in the year in respect of, in the course of, or by virtue of an office or employment". One could get the impression by reading it in that manner that all income was exempt from tax. We know that is not the case. But, if I read this clause as an innocent taxpayer, I would be led to believe, as a citizen of Canada, that 1 would be required to pay income tax on any other benefits of any kind whatever. Then 1 would presume that it would include, for example, my expense allowance as a member of Parliament, my honorarium for taxis, the clothing allowances which many employees receive, and the other allowances which are subsequently exempted somewhere in the act.
The point I am making is that innocent taxpayers cannot wrestle with all of the complexities of the act. Therefore the act is written to the advantage of the government in collecting revenue on the widest possible basis from innocent, ordinary Canadians who perhaps cannot afford accountants, who perhaps hire bad accountants, or who struggle to complete their income tax returns on their own with the short form return and perhaps some help from the department.
In the final analysis taxpayers often get stung due to their own inability to digest this complicated and legalistic language. Therefore the Minister of Finance, who is here this afternoon, can impose very significant powers. He has liberties at his disposal which border on the undemocratic and on being immoral. I am speaking of the concept of reverse onus of proof. The taxpayer is made to feel, perhaps without intent, that he is being accused of doing a wrong, that he is found guilty and that he must prove himself innocent. It is wrong, it establishes an adversarial relationship between ordinary Canadian taxpayers and their servants who happen to be employed in the federal Department of Finance as tax assessors.
Sometimes these tax assessors couple this with an attitude of arrogance. Their marriage to their position is measured by the number of dollars they can bring each year to government by way of additional tax revenues. They will not admit mistakes. I have seen cases very close to my own experience where individuals have been accused of earning money they never made. They have been accused and, subject to the outcome of a series of complicated and costly appeals, they have been found responsible for earning income they never actually
Income Tax Act
received. The onus is placed upon the taxpaper to prove otherwise.
Then there are the tremendous confiscatory powers which the Minister of Finance enjoys in being able to withhold tax which should be returned to a taxpayer in a subsequent year when there is no fault found with his tax return. Those funds are confiscated and held by government to pay off the so-called taxes laid out through the process of assessment before it has been proven that the taxpayer has made an error in his return and should be responsible for remitting those taxes.
The Minister of Finance has the power to garnishee salaries, to take titles of homes, and to demand notes of credit from bankers before innocent taxpayers have been proven guilty of a violation or a transgression under the Income Tax Act. I think that is wrong, wrong, wrong.
This is Canada. It is a free country where we treat one another with dignity. Our citizens should not be put in a position where they are judged and made to feel like criminals until they have had a fair opportunity to prove that they did not receive certain moneys upon which the government is attempting to tax them, without the need of resorting to great legal cost or high-priced accountants.
I have a series of claims by constituents against the Surrey Taxation and Data Centre in the lower mainland of British Columbia. Most of these complaints can be summarized by reading a couple of quotations in a letter which I received from a constituent who has tried since the middle of June, 1980, to obtain information about his assessment because he did not receive his tax rebate after filing his 1979 tax return. He made over a dozen calls since last summer, and he received the following answers: the delay could be caused by the change in government; it could be a million reasons; it is now being assessed; it has now been carded. He received a different excuse each time. Having been told at one point that his return was being assessed, a week later he was informed that it was not being assessed. He was most infuriated, and when he asked to speak to someone in charge, he was told that there was no one, that all the information was in the computer. These are the kinds of problems with which constituents are faced.
I received another letter from an American citizen who was employed and lived in my riding in British Columbia for a year. Some $6,000 of his income was withheld by the Government of Canada. Last June he wrote a letter, of which I have a copy. It was addressed very carefully to the Surrey Taxation and Data Centre and asked what procedure he had to follow in order to have that withheld tax rebated, in view of the nature of our reciprocal tax treaty with the United States. He received no response to that letter. He wrote again in October, and still received no reply. It was the computer that was responsible; one cannot find a person at the other end of the telephone.
Finally he telephoned the Vancouver tax office in late November and he was told by a clerk that they had received his request of the previous June and that it would be processed in two or three months, that is, some time in February, 1981.

January 27, 1981
Income Tax Act
This was income on which he was taxed by the Canadian government for his 1979 tax year, and in the meantime he had to pay a tax on that same income to the United States government. This is most improper and most irresponsible of those government officials who do not feel any obligation to our own citizens, let alone those of another country who are our guests here in Canada.
After having had someone special look into that case, we have learned this individual has to apply using certain forms. No one thought to send him the application forms last June, or in October when he wrote again, or in November or December. Now he must remit application forms. I feel that is a tremendous imposition upon an individual.
1 would like to speak for a moment about RRSPs and the registered retirement income fund option. The minister has received many representations from senior citizens who have put aside earnings in Registered Retirement Savings Plans over a considerable period of time. They want to have a more flexible pay-out provision. The minister well knows that the Consumers Association of Canada has been lobbying for some time in order to have a greater degree of flexibility granted to these senior citizens. They are entitled to draw those earnings out, accept whatever penalties are imposed, but should be able to draw them out at a rate which is consistent with their own needs.
You may know, Mr. Chairman, that under the present scheme the pensioner at age 71 must opt either to take an annuity payable at age 90 or take a stream of cash which is indexed so that, for example, if the pensioner had $100,000 accumulated in his RRSP, at age 71 he would receive something in the order of $9,000 a year, and at age 90 he would receive $22,000 a year. Many people come to me asking what good $22,000 a year is to a man hobbling on a cane at age 91, if he is still alive. He would prefer to have the option of using some of those funds earlier in his retirement so that he might enjoy them and be willing to pay whatever tax penalties are incurred at the point.
Others have suggested they would like to keep the money in the RRSP. They do not want to take it out at age 71. They may not want to take it out until age 75, when some other source of income has been exhausted. It seems absolutely unreasonable that the Minister of Finance to this date has not given a positive undertaking to all these appeals and to the Consumers Association of Canada, granting more flexibility with respect to the disposition of the RRSPs and the proceeds of those plans to the benefit of our senior citizens.
1 do not have much time left, Mr. Chairman, but I wish to add a few words with respect to the Small Business Development Bonds. There are many people, entrepreneurial individuals, trying to build businesses in my riding, and elsewhere across the country, who have predicated their loans and their business plans on the expectation that the special rate of low interest under the Small Business Development Bond would be available to them in order to offset the high cost of interest.
There are cases where individuals have been carrying a line of credit for almost a year based upon the minister's initial mini-budget statements of last April. They have been amassing large amounts of deficit accumulated from high interest rates for bridge financing. They are now being told, as we approach March 31, that if they do not have the project completed by that date any subsequent commitments they have made, in terms of spending to complete the project, will have to be financed by some other means. I think this is heartless and cruel, Mr. Chairman. We have people who have sacrificed their livelihoods. They have bought property. They have gone to great lengths to have it rezoned. They have hired architects, contractors, and they have had estimates done. They have signed contracts and borrowed for bridge financing. But they are told that if they do not have the project more than a quarter or half complete by the end of March they will not be able to complete the project.
The whole basis for those types of entrepreneurial ventures, the whole Financial viability, is predicated on a certain cash flow from the business and a certain outlook as to the expenses. The prospective business person is faced with a doubling of his interest charges, because he will not get a Small Business Development Bond, even though the banker has been willing to extend him credit, when he has no assurance as to whether expenses incurred in 1980 will receive the benefits of this bond.
To this day we do not have any assurance that expenses incurred prior to March 31 will receive benefit under this scheme. In fact, if this deadline date of March 31 is not extended and the enabling legislation has not been passed by that date, then 1 must say that the whole talk, the whole promise of a Small Business Development Bond program by the government opposite is a fraud-a plain fraud-F-R-A-U-D. To create the impression among the people of this country that they were to receive something when, in fact, the government had no intention in the first place of extending that benefit to them, is fraud.
There is no provision in the measure before us for any special consideration to farmers and fishermen-the latter being particularly important in my riding. Under the Crosbie budget there was a 10-cent, or a 10 per cent rebate on the cost of fuel. There is now talk by the federal fisheries officials in British Columbia that they will, in fact, impose a landings charge or a so-called resource rent. This will be an additional supplementary income tax upon fishermen. And this government has not chosen to help them with the cost of fuel. The fishermen do not buy that when it is placed in contrast to the benefits appreciated by the dairy industry, the milk producers, the butter industry and many other industries, through regional equalization grants and other types of financial assistance.
Here is a government which will tax the fishermen and it has chosen not to give them any special assistance in the area of fuel. By imposing a wellhead tax, a Canadian ownership charge and a self-sufficiency tax, the Minister of Finance has imposed a tremendous burden upon all people who consume energy, whether they be manufacturers, small business per-
January 27, 1981

sons, farmers, fishermen, home owners who must heat their homes, and those who operate transportation systems. The Crosbie budget would have imposed the same burden, only it would have been upon that discretionary use of fuel, the burning of gasoline by automobiles, through the purchase of gasoline at the pump. That, Mr. Chairman, is another defect in the budget and it is something which the minister ought to be addressing when he considers amendments to this bill.
1 have had many requests from parents of handicapped children as to whether or not the government can provide some type of tax break for parents who must buy special aids for the deaf and the blind. 1 see you getting to your feet, Mr. Chairman, so I shall end at this point.
[ Translation]


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words on capital gains, especially since the minister published a document on that topic last November. I would like to draw the attention of all members of the House to that publication because you will see what it means in terms of capital gains, what it implies in general.

Actually, Mr. Chairman, in my book capital gains is one of the biggest swindles that the government has ever perpetrated on the Canadian people. It is the built-in incentive for continuing inflation since there is no provision against artificial gain. The gain in the price of a commodity, such as personal property or real estate, is in itself a reflection of the loss of control of the economy by the government. Frankly, wherever there is percentage taxation there is a built-in incentive to allow inflation to continue.
In 1973 the former minister of finance acceded to the demand for the indexation of personal income as a hedge against the government benefiting from inflation of wages and salaries. He did this, of course, after he had said during the election campaign of 1972 that such a move would bankrupt the country. Then John Turner proceeded with a similar formula to introduce the indexation of personal income so that there was a constant dollar on which income taxes would be based. And that is what we should have as Robert Stanfield had advocated.
Mr. Chairman, I am speaking generally, as we usually do on clause 1, although why we do it I do not know. There are many references to capital gains in Bill C-54. Therefore I would like to put on record some views with regard to capital gains. In the course of my speech on second reading 1 spoke in extenso on the inequities of capital gains with regard to the sale of farm land for agricultural purposes. I believe that capital gains is a form of sheer robbery and a deterrent to continuing farm operation in this country, when that sector of the Canadian economy, according to comments made during the highly touted trips of the Prime Minister, will have to meet increased demand upon Canadian agriculture to provide food and other
Income Tax Act
basic raw materials for the Third World. The paradox is startling.
What is the effect of this capital gains? A retiring farmer sold a parcel of land on the outskirts of the city of Edmonton within the past few weeks for $6 million, on which he will pay something like $2 million in capital gains tax. Obviously, this land is not for agricultural purposes and I agree that capital gains tax should be paid, but taxes were paid before 1972 on land which was being subdivided for other than agricultural purposes. As a matter of fact the tax rate was higher than it is now. But this was a business venture. The land was coming out of agricultural production and going into subdivision. If the land is to be subdivided, then it is fair game and should be taxed.
However, the capital gains tax has the effect of guaranteeing that that $2 million will ultimately be paid by the purchasers of the homes which will be built on that parcel of land. The government says that it worries about this situation. In Vancouver today a three-bedroom home is being sold for $175,000. Of course speculation in Vancouver is grist for the government's mill. These homes are not bought for residences. They are being bought for speculative purposes, and the tax on these homes is being loaded on every time there is a transaction. This tax is ultimately paid by the purchaser, just as the purchaser in effect always pays the real estate commission, which is loaded on top of the price. It is all a nitwit's game played for the benefit of the government.
If one looks at pages 8 and 9 of the minister's monograph, one will find Table 1 which shows that individuals in 1978, which is the last year for which there are complete statistics, paid on net taxable gains of $1,193,000,000 and that the corporations paid only on $795 million, making a total of $3,977,000,000 of net capital gains to which income tax is applicable at whatever level. It does not mean that that much has been paid in income tax. It is impossible to determine, as 1 have tried on numerous occasions, how much income tax is attributable to the capital gains tax, unless one were to take every individual return on which capital gains were acknowledged. The capital gains is usually translated into the taxable income and put at the marginal rate of the individual person or the rate that is paid by that corporation, whether it be a small business or a major corporation earning at the top rate. Therefore it is impossible to say how much tax was paid.
1 judge that, if there were close to $4 billion acknowledged in capital gains in 1978, 50 per cent of that, because the losses have already been wiped out, which would be $2 billion, and at least $1 billion was paid on income in that year. We do not have the figures for 1979 and 1980 which had inflation factors of 10 per cent which will naturally affect the figure when added thereto. The 1980 statistics will likely show a downturn in capital gains because of the reduced economic activity and the lowering of certain markets.
1 feel that the minister's documentation here is welcomed by the Department of Finance. 1 certainly hope that the tax accountants and hon. members in this House will examine it very carefully and that we will get a chance to ask questions of
6616

January 27, 1981
Private Members' Public Bills
the minister to see what effects this matter will have on risk taking,
I would now like to talk about a plan which 1 advanced years ago. The government talks about forced Canadianization and taxation on oil at the wellhead to provide capital for that government octopus called Petro-Canada, which has only shown its ability through its desire to build a huge skyscraper in Calgary and to load staff, a la-Crown corporation style, by hiring every Tom, Dick and Harry. How about an incentive for the ordinary taxpayer? I can see some hon. members here who would welcome such a provision. If we determine within a ball park what are the relevant research resources and development propositions and what are Canadian companies, one can then indicate that any Canadian citizen or bona fide Canadian company can purchase the shares of Canadian companies or in fact any company engaged in resource search development-


The Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. It is five o'clock.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook)-Regulatory reform-Task force report-Status of recommendations; the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby)-Canadian National Railways-Investment in foreign shipping group; the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie)-World Health Organization-Canadian position on infant formula for Third World countries.
It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills, notices of motions.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the parties and it is a little bit awkward for me to propose this motion but I shall. I am sorry the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) is not in the House at the moment but we had agreed to this and 1 am sure he has just been delayed. The hon. member for
Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has also agreed to the following request.
The problem is that Bill C-227 standing in the name of the hon. member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher) is a bill that I introduced five years ago. As a result of the bill coming forward in the next little while, and as a result of a misconception that I was under when the bill was introduced on my behalf by the hon. member for Mississauga North, we have agreed to revert the sponsorship of the bill back to me as the member for York East. The hon. member for Mississauga North will concur with that in a moment. The bill is not to be debated today but will be debated some time next week.
I would point out that according to citation 401 of Beau-chesne no notice is required for change of sponsorship of a private member's motion. I can assure hon. members that this matter has been discussed by the House leaders on the other side. If there is agreement of the House, then I would propose a motion so to change this sponsorship.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: This can be done with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Mr. Fisher:: Mr. Speaker, I only want to concur in the statement made by the parliamentary secretary. It was a pleasure for me to introduce the bill originally. It sprang from his ideas, his experience and his concern, and I am happy to let him have the credit for that.


David Michael Collenette: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you could advise whether unanimous consent is sufficient or whether you want to make a House order so that the order paper can be changed when it is printed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Agreed and so ordered.
Items Nos. 17, 18, 22, 25, 27 and 29 allowed to stand by unanimous consent.

[ Translation]


BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT
Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull) moved: that Bill C-230, to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (national capital of Canada), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to debate this bill which has been on the order paper for quite some time. 1 realize that it may be one of the most challenging pieces of legislation ever debated in the House since its purpose is to change the national capital of Canada. Mr. Speaker, may I make it clear that I am not advocating dissociation between the name Ottawa and Canada's capital city. I think that the historical background of the capital of Canada is
January 27, 1981

properly reflected by the objective of Bill C-230. A cursory glance at the bill-of course I have no intention of reading the full text-reveals that essentially it has to do with section 16 of the constitution. If it were repealed, the amendment would read as follows:
It is hereby declared that the national capital of Canada and the seat of the federal government of Canada shall consist of the city of Ottawa, in the province of Ontario, and of the city of Hull, in the province of Quebec, and also of such surrounding area as prescribed from time to time by the Parliament of Canada.
To make everything crystal clear, Mr. Speaker, 1 would want this new capital to become what is designated as the National Capital Region in an act of Parliament of 1958, which contains a geographical description of the municipalities that are part of the national capital. I believe Parliament enacted that legislation in 1958, thereby creating a Federal District Commission known as the National Capital Commission. The region itself is mostly urban. It includes the city of Ottawa and its suburbs as well as adjacent territories and, on the Hull side, as far as Gatineau and part of the federal ridings of Pontiac and Hull.
Mr. Speaker, let us retrace the history of our national capital. In 1858, Queen Victoria asked that Ottawa be known not as the capital-if memory serves me right, I have not seen the word "capital" in the constitution-but as the seat of government. A linguist 1 am not, so I would not want to come up with unenlightened definitions of the expressions "capital" and "seat of government", but I am sure the subject lends itself to debate and especially reflection.
Mr. Speaker, if I refer to Hull, and that is the object of my bill, it is because the various governments we have had since 1899 have always been anxious to have a capital which would reflect the aspirations of Canadians, the unity of our country, its cultures and the duality represented by both peoples of Canada. To my mind, the National Capital Region is the striking example of what Canada is and of what the Canada of tomorrow will be, because I think that no other regions in Canada can generally get along as well as Hull and Ottawa do, although there may be the odd conflict here and there. Indeed they have opted for identical administrative structures, and here I refer to the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Community and the Outaouais Regional Community.
Mr. Speaker, if we examine the past and read history books, we find out that in 1899 the governments realized that the authorities of the city of Ottawa were unable to maintain and improve what was then known as the capital of Canada. That is why they created the Ottawa Improvement Commission which continued in existence until the advent of the Federal District Commission in 1926-27.
We had the Federal District Commission and then the National Capital Commission which, basically, have always aimed at embellishing and protecting the environment of the
National Capital of Canada
national capital. This is so true, Mr. Speaker, that a man who thought big and who had a vision of the future such as perhaps no politician has had since Sir Wilfrid Laurier, decided because of all this inertia, through his minister, the then Minister of Finance, Mr. Fielding, to hold a kind of plebiscite in the federal capital in order to ask the residents whether they would agree to a federal district which would become the Washington of the North. This was the dream of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. A plebiscite was held in 1906, but it was unfortunately defeated by no more than 600 or 800 votes, which means that 45 per cent of the people were in favour of this concept, and I would add that the people in Hull did not vote on this issue for the simple reason that they had not been invited to do so.
Since then, Mr. Speaker, the situation has evolved greatly. We have had the Holt commission, which published its report in 1915, I believe, and which had been created by the Conservative government of Mr. Borden. This commission was made up of six members including the mayors of Ottawa and Hull, who themselves advocated a federal district to administer the Canadian capital. All the successive mayors and elected representatives of Hull have always urged and implored the federal government to extend in some way the national capital on the Hull side.
Even King, in 1927, Mr. Speaker, was in favour of a federal district-and I say this for those who are not aware of it-and Mr. Pearson also advocated a federal district for the Ottawa-Hull region on television in 1964. In 1927, King also had a great vision of the future, and it can be said that the national capital region was always a priority for him. Indeed, one only has to look at what he left in the magnificent Gatineau park to see that the national capital was one of his priorities. He also decided to urge the improvement commission to do something for Hull. The Federal District Commission was created in 1927, and that is when things started to change for the Hull region. However, it took many representations, many pleas and many prayers until finally, around 1968-69, after many studies carried out by joint committees of the Senate and the House of Commons, a consensus was reached at the constitutional conference and the premiers agreed that the Ottawa-Hull region would from then on be known as the National Capital region. Since then, massive investments have been made on the side of Hull, not only to meet the wishes of the population, but also to accomplish what Canadian prime ministers have wanted for the Ottawa-Hull region since 1895.
If it had not been for the First World War, the fire that destroyed the Parliament buildings, the depression and the Second World War, Mr. Speaker, we would now be living in a federal district. Even the Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons advocated some type of federal district for the Ottawa-Hull region in its recommendation 47 in 1972, which is not so long ago.

January 27, 1981
National Capital of Canada
Mr. Speaker, we have to face the facts, and this is why 1 have introduced this bill to create a legal framework for what is now a reality. In fact, in 1972 or 1973, I believe, when the government introduced its reorganization project for departments and government administration, it replaced the word "Ottawa" in the acts governing the departments whose headquarters were in Ottawa, the Canadian capital, by the term "the region of the National Capital". This was in recognition of the fact that the National Capital Region was to all intents and purposes the capital of the country. If you go to Ottawa international airport and look at the airlines' advertising you will see that Air Canada, CP and other companies list their arrival and departure time under Ottawa-Hull. When I returned from Miami a short while ago on flight 172 to Baltimore and Ottawa I noticed on the sign "Ottawa-Hull". So it is only a normal occurrence that airlines, both national and foreign, should recognize an actual situation. That is why we must consider the capital of Canada as the National Capital Region, and I am not talking about making it a federal district, although I have mentioned it. Also, you will note that the 1981 telephone book, for those who have received it, reads in big letters Ottawa-Hull. And there are a host of similar things. The Auberge de la Chaudiere-I do not want to give it any publicity but it is a magnificent hotel-gives its location in its ads in Time magazine as Ottawa-Hull.
There are many such cases. Since 1969 we have had a new Hull, an urban Hull which is spreading out to Gatineau, and I see the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Cousineau) might prefer to say that Gatineau is spreading out to Hull, but in any case, one thing is sure and that is that we now have an urban population within a five to six-mile radius which is part of the National Capital.
There have been many surveys, Mr. Speaker. The people of Hull have been asked many times by CROP and other opinion polls if they wanted to belong to the National Capital and the response has always been about 85 per cent in favour. That is why, Mr. Speaker, the law should reflect the actual facts. Now changing the Constitution certainly poses problems in some regards but as far as section 16 is concerned, we do not need a committee, we do not need anything. Just listen to the witnesses! I think that was done by the joint committee on the Constitution in 1972.
There was another committee on the National Capital of course which, for reasons that escape me, did not pursue its work. Still, things must change, otherwise someone later on in history will certainly bring up what has been an inconsistency dating back many years. 1 am not talking about the mayors of Hull who have always held the same view and who are quite contented. But ask the people on the street and the majority will tell you that they are very happy to live in the National Capital Region.
I still have many things to say, Mr. Speaker, but time is running short, and I know that my colleagues would like to
speak on this subject. I hope they will not rise merely to hear themselves speak but have a genuine contribution to make to this debate. Unfortunately there are many members in this House who rise and have nothing to say. But I would like to hear their views if they really have some to express. I am sure that I have friends on both sides who, if they have been living here for some years, will understand what 1 am talking about.
1 do not want to take anything away from Ottawa, quite the opposite, I think it is a marvellous city. A million visitors come to the National Capital every year. These people do not come only to visit the Parliament buildings. They come to see the capital of their country. I think Ottawa is a beautiful city, an extraordinarily clean city. That is why it should share all its amenities with the other side, as it does with its suburbs. I am just as eager to see the area which is not Ottawa but within the national capital region, as shown on an official map of the national capital region included as part of the national capital, as I am to sec the townships adjacent to Hull also become part of the national capital of Canada.
Besides, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that those who really want their capital to reflect truly its status as the seat of the federal government would want it to symbolize the power and the unity of the country, to be the home and the soul of our nation as well as the image it casts to the world. In my opinion Ottawa-Hull is a microcosm of what tomorrow's Canada should be.
1 hope that those who take the floor after me will have something to say on that subject at another sitting; 1 might find that they were completely mistaken.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I find myself in the opposite corner of the House and actually the physical distance between us would force my friend from Hull to use binoculars, because we almost need them in the House to see each other.
However, as a Canadian from the city of Edmonton, I am just as interested in the national capital of my country as the hon. member who lives in the neighbouring city of Hull. In my opinion, that is all he is, a neighbour who represents the citizens of Hull, Quebec.
From a geographic point of view, I entirely agree with the hon. member and those who find it would be more attractive for Ottawa to extend on both sides of the Ottawa river at the foot of the Gatineau hills, because it is an exceptionally beautiful area not easily matched elsewhere in Canada. Having lived here for 16 years, 1 will admit that I am sympathetic to the idea. However, the hon. member is a physician and I am a lawyer. Therefore 1 would like to consider the bill. Unfortunately, to start, the hon. member has fallen into a trap. He argues from the premise that the end justifies the means. Actually, although it might perhaps be advisable to have the entire area which consists of the city of
January 27, 1981

Ottawa, the city of Hull and the neighbouring townships, included in the national capital region, legally it is impossible.
Mr. Speaker, I am rather surprised that a legal argument which the hon. member could have used has been allowed to appear in the bill. Unfortunately, I do not agree with Judge Cartright who used to feel that the Queen and Parliament have the right to determine the location of the federal Parliament. The provinces are clearly involved in the matter and their consent would be required.
We could actually legislate that the national capital would from now on be called Ottawa-Hull. Since such is not the view of the province of Quebec because that would seem to lessen its influence over its territories, the Quebec government could immediately introduce a bill rather longer than this one, as the result of which the name of Hull would be totally eliminated because the Quebec government is responsible for setting the limits of the city of Hull. That does not take time. It is only a matter of dividing the whole into two, three or four parts and to assign them to neighbouring communities. This way Hull would become part of history. I suggest therefore that the bill introduced by the federal government would be altogether worthless. No!

1 now want to turn to the desires expressed by many of the people I represent in Edmonton. Many if not all of my colleagues from other parts of the country, whether the east, centre or west, will say that the determination of what shall be the capital of their country belongs as much to them as to the people of Ontario or Quebec where the actual site is located.
If a plan were submitted with the consent of Ontario and Quebec, and with the general approbation of the country, that the capital be expanded to include the new area, 1 am sure most people would agree. 1 think there is a certain attraction to it. The proposer of this bill took us through the history of this matter. I am sure that when the matter was first considered 100 years ago, as indicated by the hon. member, there were certain arguments in favour of it. Some are still in existence today. 1 do not disagree with them. However, legally this House does not have the power to change the name and the location of the capital of Canada by passage of a bill in this House and the other place and then have it sent on for royal assent. That would be the greatest nullity ever perpetrated in this House.
In the province of Ontario there is the city of Ottawa, the city of Vanier, the village of Rockliffe, the city of Nepean, the city of Kanata, the township of Gloucester-


Mr. Simmons:: The city of Gloucester.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: All of these are on the Ontario side. If the impatient young member from Newfoundland will listen-


Roger Simmons: I was trying to help. It is the city of Gloucester.
National Capital of Canada


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. member is correct. I apologize. As of the first of January, it became the city of Gloucester.


Roger Simmons: He learns after a while.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That's right. And I am willing to admit it, unlike some other people. There are other municipalities on the Ontario side which are included in the area the proposer of this bill asks to be included in the area of the national capital. Those represent the boundaries; that is only as to name. Everything else that is south of the Ottawa River is under the control of the province of Ontario.
I need not go into all the municipalities, whether of a regional nature or otherwise, which exist on the Quebec side of the river. They are entirely under the dependence of the government of the province of Quebec. The people within those regions may be moved to amalgamate, something that has happened before. They may be moved to upgrade their status, as we have seen on the Ontario side with the growth of population in the cities of Nepean, Kanata and Gloucester. However, the boundaries are fixed by provincial legislation.
In his amendment the hon. member says it is hereby declared that the national capital of Canada and the seat of the federal government of Canada shall consist of the city of Ottawa and the city of Hull. If we adopt that, we will then be saying by act of Parliament that part of the national capital of this country shall be under the jurisdiction of yet another government within Canada so far as its location is concerned, and that to me is a nullity.
I think there is a very logical reason for suggesting that in this national capital region we have unity of assessment, the same type of health services, police protection, fire protection and transportation for the residents here and those citizens living on the other side of the river whose jobs are on this side.
1 suggest there are scores of thousands-perhaps hundreds of thousands-of people on both sides of the river who consider their lives totally interchangeable on either side. They will go to a supermarket in Ottawa one day, and the next they will go to a similar supermarket in Hull or in one of the other municipalities on that side of the river. They live in this region, and they are part of the region. There are intermarriages and all sorts of interrelationships between people on both sides.
I would not accept the example of Air Canada in this regard, which shows Ottawa-Hull in its timetable. That should not be a justification. After all, one used to be able to look at Air Canada's timetable and see Toronto and Hamilton joined together, and there is certainly a great deal of difference between Toronto and Hamilton, just as there is between Ottawa and Hull.


An hon. Member:: Vive la difference.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is not a reason for advancing this idea in the House. The hon. member might, by way of resolution, suggest that the government set up another study, perhaps the ultimate study this time. Perhaps people have progressed far

January 27, 1981
National Capital of Canada
enough that they have influence with the government in Quebec City.

And that is another story altogether. How can one think for just a moment that at this point the Quebec government would agree to part with one single square centimetre of Quebec territory along the Ottawa River, so that it would become part and parcel of the national capital? In my opinion, it would never agree to that. Even if people really wanted it, they would elect somebody else. After all, the people in Hull elected a PQ candidate the last time around. Perhaps they would elect two now. Then, would these people reflect the opinion of the public as expressed by the Liberal member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle), would they want a national capital, an integrated city, for we would require an integrated city, not a city or a region or a capital divided in two? Unless the Ontario and Quebec governments agreed on the need to provide comparable joint services, a great deal more still has to be done. As to the natural site of the capital, I share the feelings of the hon. member, just as many others would, but for the time being, I am afraid that, however attractive this proposal may seem, it seems that the Canadian people elsewhere in Canada would have also to agree to this change.
You cannot imagine, Mr. Speaker, how many letters I have received from people protesting against the transfer of federal buildings from this side to the Hull side, in order to establish unilaterally the fact that Ottawa-Hull had become the capital of Canada. And 1 might say that most protesters supported the political party of the hon. member. Those people said, "Definitely not, not that way, give us another plan". But it is the same thing today with the constitution. People are quite willing to patriate the constitution: We would like to have the constitution. But no group has the right to say: "You are going to act this way and that way and not otherwise." The decision belongs to the people of Canada.
The national capital belongs to the people of Canada just as the chief of state, the Queen belongs to the people, and the people will not be ordered around by a prime minister or an administration passing legislation or resolutions here in Parliament or obtaining the consent of the country at large. The constitution is the people's consent to a legislative program. It does not amount to voting a body of legislation, to imposing something on the people. That is the difference and that is what the people of Canada would require in such a situation: Do not impose change, seek to obtain it and you will probably get it. But at the present time, I am afraid the hon. member went astray by trying to amend the British North America Act to change the description of the capital of this country. And I regret it very much, since I know the hon. member very well, and I see his objective is worth while, but he did not make his case. I could not support such a bill.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, let me say I support the principle of this bill, which is what we are debating at second reading, presented by the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle). I have long felt that we should have a national capital district or region in Canada similar to those which exist in other countries, such as the United States or Australia, whereby the national capital region includes all the territory on which the capital exists as well as the surrounding area.
On my first trip to Ottawa some 21 years ago I could see Parliament from almost any part of the city. It was a beautiful sight. Today it is obliterated by high rise office buildings and complexes. It has become nothing more than part of the usual North American downtown concentration. When I returned for our one hundredth birthday in 1967, the obliteration had commenced. When I came here as a member of Parliament in 1968, there were certain regulations and bylaws concerning the height of buildings and their location in relation to Parliament Hill, as it is known. Year after year, various loopholes were found by developers and people whose taste was all in their mouths and who were more interested in making bucks than they were in the beauty and value of a real national capital city.
1 am sure the hon. member realizes that the chances of this bill being accepted by the government, or of succeeding in this way only, are almost nil, but at least he has made an effort. At this time of the year I wish he had put forward as well another private member's bill similar to the one brought forward by the former member for Waterloo-Cambridge to allow the Turks and Caicos Islands to become part of Canada so we could have Parliament sit there in the wintertime. The weather there is somewhat better than it is here.
I believe that if we were to negotiate with the provinces of Ontario and Quebec and if there were concurrent resolutions put forward in other legislatures in Canada, we could succeed in acquiring the area which encompasses the lands of the National Capital Commission for the creation of a real national capital district similar to the District of Columbia in the United States and similar to districts in a number of other countries and for the construction of a completely new national capital.
The hon. member for Hull, the good doctor, is not trying to dismember the country or to cause any separatism in this small area of Canada. I do not know whether he is a surgeon, but he is trying to build something which would add to national unity and national identity, and we support that. I hope he will continue to try to convince one or more members of the national assembly of Quebec to sponsor a bill or a resolution in that legislative body, one or more members of the Ontario legislature to do the same, as well as a member of the federal Parliament so that this bill or resolution could deal with many of the problems which have been raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and so that an agreement
January 27, 1981

could be arrived at for the establishment of a national capital region or district.
One wonders whether there would be a willingness on the part of the provinces of Quebec and Ontario to give up their territory. One could be unkind enough to say that if Quebec would give up Hull and part of the Gatineau hills, we could give Toronto to Quebec in exchange. One could also offer Ontario an Arctic island in exchange for the Ottawa area.


Mark Willson Rose: One with some oil on it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Yes, it would be preferable if it had some oil on it.
1 think this is a concept which is universally recognized, and the idea is supported in principle by people in all walks of life and in all political parties. Even if we did no more than just agree to this bill in principle and nothing else happened to it, that in itself would be a beginning. I am realistic enough to know that it would take a number of years to accomplish the objectives which the hon. member for Hull wishes to attain and which I think many members on all sides would like to see reached, but this would require discussion and agreement between the federal government and the two provinces directly concerned as well as resolutions of support from the other eight provinces and two territories.
This could become a district belonging to all the people of Canada, reflecting all the provinces and regions of the country and reflecting the two official languages and the multicultural-ism of the people. In the way we would run the place, in the names of the buildings and streets and in the languages used recognition could be given to all parts of the country. In effect, it would be a place which would belong to all Canadians. People could still have their local government, they could elect their local education authorities and they would be governed by the laws of the respective provinces when it came to municipal and educational endeavours. These areas could be autonomous but, on the other hand, that would be subject to negotiation and agreement with Hull, Ottawa and the other municipalities in both areas as well as the provinces of Quebec and Ontario.
I congratulate the hon. member for starting this concept. He was lucky enough in the draw that his bill came up early and we had a chance for debate. I hope that subsequent to this debate the House will adopt the bill in principle. Even if it dies on the order paper, it will still be a beginning. I hope the hon. member will continue to expand on it and to seek the support of the national assembly in Quebec and the legislature in Ontario. He will then find much quicker results because of agreement being reached prior to any amendments to our constitution, to our federal legislation or to the legislation of the two provinces concerned.
I hope the government and all members will accept the bill in principle and that the hon. gentleman will continue to work at this worth-while endeavour.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, in entering this debate it had been my intention to suggest to
National Capital of Canada
you that Bill C-230, introduced by the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle), is defective in that it deals with a matter which is already before the House in another forum. However, I have consulted the Table officers, and 1 now find it to be acceptable. The constitutional amendments which are now before the committee in the form of a resolution do not make this particular bill, which also proposes amendment of the constitution, unacceptable under the procedures of this House. So on those grounds I have had to shift my stance.
There is, however, one matter which might be of some small concern to the hon. member introducing this bill. It is recognizable because the bill was introduced and given first reading on May 2, 1980. Clause 2 indicates that "this act may be cited as the British North America Act, 1980". I am sure the hon. member would like that changed to 1981, since we are now into the new year.
The explanatory notes refer to the remarks of Mr. Justice Cartwright of the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Munro v. the National Capital Commission of 1966. I should should point out that the Munro in question is a person with whom I am in no way connected. In part Mr. Justice Cartwright said:
-the change could doubtless, be made by an act of Parliament in which Her Majesty acts with the advice and consent of the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada.
Any resolution which would change our constitution must perforce go through the House either as a bill or, in very special circumstances, it could proceed as a constitutional amendment by order in council. But on a matter of this importance, it is quite correct that Parliament should make the decision.
As has been said by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), the matter of how the Senate and the House of Commons should give their advice and consent is at issue. It cannot be done in the House without the advice and consent of other levels or orders of government. I prefer to use the words "orders of government". As was said by the hon. member for Edmonton West, and I concur, the capital of my country is not by any means a matter which can be decided upon by one order of government. If I did not know the hon. member for Hull better, I would say he is demonstrating lack of awareness of the rest of the country by bringing forward a measure of this type without the approval of the other orders of government in this country and with a total lack of regard for the feeling of the hinterland or outlying parts of the country.
I am sure the hon. member does not wish to offend, but this is exactly what such an action would do; it presumes that this order of government could change the capital of the country without consultation with the other orders of government, even the one which is very close by and immediately affected, namely, the government of the province of Quebec. Without giving it too heavy an overtone, it is offensive in the sense that it would offend jurisdictions which are beyond the jurisdiction of this House, but which need to be consulted about any action

January 27, 1981
National Capital of Canada
by this House in such a matter. To a considerable extent the hon. member is leaning in his preamble on section 16 of the British North America Act, which reads as follows:
Until the Queen otherwise directs, the seat of Government of Canada shall be Ottawa.
As the hon. member quite correctly said, it is not the "capital"; it is the "seat of government". When Ottawa was originally chosen, it was chosen as the seat of government in Canada. In fact, the address to Her Majesty Queen Victoria on March 24, 1857, indicated "the permanent seat of government in Canada". At that time Canada consisted of the united provinces of Upper and Lower Canada.
When the BNA Act was being drafted, representatives of Upper and Lower Canada were attending meetings in Quebec City and Charlottetown to draw up the measures which would constitute the formation of an enlarged Canada, and the "seat of government for Canada" was being decided.
The hon. member also leans on head I of section 91, which outlines the power of Parliament to amend from time to time the Constitution of Canada, but he overlooks section 92.13, to which the hon. member for Edmonton West referred. It deals with the question of property, which was at issue during oral questions and the subject of questions of privilege today, as well as in committee. Property and civil rights are matters within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. For this Parliament to presume to impose its will on property beyond its jurisdiction would be-and 1 use the word tenderly- offensive to the province of Quebec without its consent. I hope the hon. member will accept the intent with which I am making these comments. I do not use "offensive" in an offensive manner; it just offends the niceties and the areas of jurisdiction within our country if this chamber presumes that it can impose its will upon another jurisdiction.
If the member was desirous of this measure being accepted,
I am surprised he was unable to persuade members of his party that perhaps this particular aspect might be included in the constitutional measures before the committee. It could very well have been article X, Y or Z of the resolution which purports to make changes to the Constitution of Canada. His bill received first reading on May 2, and the resolution was not presented to the House until October 6. That gave him ample time to persuade the cabinet that his measure might well have been included in the ones which were brought forward. Of course, I recognize that it would be an imposition-as are many of the other measures-on other jurisdictions without the consent of the provinces.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Like property.


Donald W. Munro: I hear a member saying "quite properly". I think it is quite improperly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bill C-54, to amend the statute law relating to income tax-Mr. MacEachen-Mr. Ethier in the chair.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, before we adjourned for dinner I was going through a proposition which I had put before the House. I would like to repeat just a little bit of it. It seems to me that rather than bulldozing Canadianization of resource industries, as is proposed in the national energy policy put forward by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, 1 would like to encourage Canadian citizens to do it on a voluntary basis. I know hon. members from all parties would much prefer to see it done this way. I would take those natural resource search and development companies in Canada, whether foreign or Canadian owned, and work out the following proposition: their shares, available to Canadian citizens and bona fide Canadian companies on the market, would have the added benefit, when related to the capital gains section of the Income Tax Act, of providing an investment opportunity to those persons qualified, and by "persons" I include corporations. If the shares were to be held for five years, with, if necessary roll-overs within the ballpark of approved resources or approved companies, then they would attract a forgiveness of tax for capital gains purposes.
I have in mind a five-year plan so that an investment within the ballpark, maintained by the taxpayer or the investor for five years, would earn a total remission of any capital gains tax. If it were kept for four years, it would be 80 per cent, and this would go down through 20 per cent per annum. It seems to me that under those circumstances we could attract a great deal more Canadian participation. I am being, shall we say, discriminatory in favour of Canadian citizens and bona fide Canadian companies in the area of investment in the resource search and development industry. It has not been tried before in Canada, so I cannot say I could guarantee that we would see such and such a shift in ownership. I do not personally know whether such a proposition would bring about the nirvana and cause a very significant shift, but I am satisfied there would be a considerable shift.
As the plan progressed, Canadian money or even foreign money for the purpose of resource development in this country would soon Canadianize itself and come into the hands of
January 27, 1981

Canadians, who would have the rights of owners of shares, whether they be in partnerships or corporations in the search for and development of Canadian resources. At one time my party approved, in a hesitating way, a plan for putting a ceiling on such investment. There cannot be a ceiling on the amount of money invested because it is an incentive. Something must be done, and it does not cost the state anything because, unless the incentive were there, the action would not be taken.
That is why 1 say there is so much poppycock and deluding of the public when the Government of Canada says it has assisted the oil industry through incentives and made financial contributions, perhaps in the billions of dollars, for the development of resources in this country. That is an utter falsehood because, unless that incentive existed in the first place, no action would have been taken and, if no action is taken nothing falls to the government, and nothing is done. People merely sit on their hands or invest their money elsewhere.
The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood may shake his head all he wants, but no investment takes place. No one in the early years of Canada's oil industry made the trip to Toronto to obtain financing for western oil companies, because it was not even worth the trip. As a former minister of the Alberta government, the hon. member for Bow River can certainly attest to that. As a lawyer in the business, I can say so as well.


Denis Éthier: Order, please. The time allotted to the hon. member has expired.


Mr. Mayer:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer this evening to Section 69 of the Income Tax Act and its interpretation in terms of small businessmen and farmers. 1 will pose some questions to the minister in the hope that he will be able to respond. Section 69 of the Income Tax Act is designed to ensure that fair value is applied to transactions which involve gifting, or dealings with people "within arm's length".
In the area of Manitoba which 1 represent, many families have incorporated their farms for purposes of taxation, estate planning and for dividing up land and farming operations among family members. Many people in my riding have been conducting their businesses on the basis of verbal agreements with the Winnipeg tax office-although I understand that in the cases involving the Regina tax office there was a written interpretation-that for the purposes of taxation rent would not be deemed to be paid by a corporation to an individual when there was no rent money available to be paid. In other words, many farms were incorporated on the basis that the individual would transfer everything he owns to his family corporation except the land, which was kept in his or her name.
These individuals took this course under the impression that for planning purposes it was the proper thing to do and with the knowledge that the transfer of land could have taken place at the time of incorporation without being taxed. However, the tax people have gone back and said that in a case where there has been a poor crop or a poor market, and as a result no rent paid by the corporation to the individual farmer or owner of
Income Tax Act
the land, for tax purposes the rent must be deemed to have been paid to the individual. This is only one side of the situation.
On the other side of the situation there has been no indication that the tax department will allow that deemed rent, which becomes income to the individual, to be claimed as an expense of the individual's corporation. This has the effect of creating a large income for the individual, but that individual has no means of offsetting that large income with expenses. Also, in a case where there is a low income because of the variability of the farming situation, the farm can suffer a large loss which, in some cases, could more than equal the total real income of the farm.
The tax department must spell out this section in very explicit and straightforward terms. We are dealing with the principle, as it is called by the tax department, of "within arm's length" with regard to family corporations. The tax department must spell out how it intends to handle such corporations.
While I am referring to rent in this case, 1 could also refer to salaries, interest on shareholders' loans or the situation where one neighbour volunteers his services to another neighbour. In the latter case, the tax department could ask the individual to show this volunteer service as income.
Some notices of reassessment have been sent out, but I understand that, for the time being, the tax department has decided not to proceed. However, it has not decided that it is wrong in principle. It has merely held in abeyance tax collections in these situations. There are two things which should happen. The tax department should clarify the situation so people will know how to govern themselves when they incorporate and, if there is to be any change in policy, people should be given a chance, and the department should not proceed on a retroactive basis. While we do not need five years, we do need more than five days to adjust to new rules.
I would like the minister to clarify any concern he may have with regard to the problem and give his thoughts on this situation in terms of further proceedings by the tax department.
Mr. Chairman, if 1 cannot get a response from either the Minister of Finance or his parliamentary secretary now, I would like to proceed with other topics, but 1 would like to have a response now, if possible.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, a number of questions have been asked, and at the appropriate time I intend to answer the hon. gentleman and other hon. members, so he can be assured that he will get the information he requests.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Chairman, I will amplify the case which I have made tonight by pointing out some of the problems which can be caused by this situation. It should be clear to the government that there are many farms which incorporate for reasons other than to avoid taxes. As 1 have said, farmers incorporate for purposes of planning family operations and for estate planning. Thus, this problem can arise on many small

January 27, 1981
Income Tax Act
farms. I am not talking about large corporations. This is also a concern to many small businessmen in the farming sector.
What concerns many farmers in this country-and 1 represent a farming area-is that when the tax department proceeds with changes, it should do so on a basis that does not create havoc in the system.
I know of a case in which a reassessment was to cover a period of four years. If that had been proceeded with, it could have caused very severe hardship for the individual involved, his family corporation and the family members who are part of it. The financial hardship could have driven the family out of business.
What I found particularly disturbing about this case was that the tax department proceeded with it as a test case. That meant that the individual concerned would bear the full cost of testing the case in court and that the tax department could then use it as a precedent for other cases on the prairies because it originated in the Winnipeg office.
It disturbed me that the individual involved could be put to considerable expense to defend himself, yet he was really acting on behalf of a group of people who had incorporated under the same guidelines as he had. In that sense it was a test case, so the individual was not really being treated fairly. Fortunately, the tax department did not proceed. If the case had gone to court and he had won, however, his expenses could have amounted to as much as the tax it was proposed to levy in the first place.
I think it is unfortunate that the tax department has enough leeway to cause problems like this for the individual farmer. 1 urge the minister to ensure that if the department decides to proceed on this basis it makes sure that an individual does not put himself into financial jeopardy for what could be considered a class action or test case on behalf of other producers in western Canada. I should not take the narrow view and refer only to western Canada because it is my understanding that if there had been a test case and a ruling obtained, it would have applied across the country.
Many small farmers would be affected by such a decision. This involves not only a decision on whether rent is deemed to be an expense whether or not money changes hands, but the same principle also involves salaries. In the case of an individual who works for his family corporation-and this certainly falls within an arm's length transaction as the Income Tax Act defines it-whether there is money to pay him a salary or not in lean times, the tax department could assess and tax him as the individual owning the operation even though he had received income from his family corporation.
The situation I have outlined could cause the same kind of hardship as the deemed rent could have caused in the individual cases with which I am familiar.
We all know that many small business people incorporate and make shareholders' loans to their own corporations. In most cases the shareholders' loans are not interest-bearing. In
fact, many banks stipulate that a shareholders' loan cannot bear interest unless the bank the corporation deals with agrees that interest can be paid.
If the provision regarding deemed rent is upheld, it could also apply to a person lending money to his own company. He would have to show as income the deemed interest accruing to him from his own company. That is a matter of concern to me, Mr. Chairman.
If the tax department decides to proceed and a ruling is made that income is deemed whether it is realized or not, it could be applied to salaries, to interest on shareholders' loans, to rent on land and to other things that an individual could rent to his own small corporation.
When changes are made, it would be sensible for the tax department to proceed on the basis of allowing people six months or a year to adjust to them. They should not be made retroactively. People should have time to adjust to them and not be put to the expense of defending themselves in court.
This concludes my remarks, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to receiving a reply from the minister on this very important matter.


Mrs. Cote:: Mr. Chairman, first I should like to congratulate the Minister of Finance for his budget and the bills which are being introduced to amend the Income Tax Act, and particularly for the investment tax credit offered to manufacturers and processors in areas where there are wide disparities.
When the federal budget was tabled on October 28 the rate of the tax credit available in areas characterized by acute disparities or difficult growth was raised from 20 to 50 per cent in the case of the businesses I have just mentioned. It is true to say that the government wanted to offer as much assistance as possible to promote commercial undertakings in underdeveloped regions and I do not think I am saying anything new to anyone, particularly to you, Mr. Chairman, when I depict the economic situation which prevails in the Rimouski-Temiscouata region.
We are part and parcel of a territory, the Lower St. Lawrence and Gaspe area, which is extremely underprivileged and which accounts for barely 4 per cent of the population of Quebec and slightly more than 1 per cent of Canada's total population. The riding of Rimouski-Temiscouata is home to nearly 75,000 people and we depend entirely on very small businesses, small and medium-size businesses, in fact-except for the city of Rimouski which has 30,000-odd residents and which is essentially a service community where municipal authorities are making superhuman efforts to spur industrial growth.
I must point out the problem I have with this investment tax credit. In a territory as wide as Rimouski-Temiscouata, I would say it stretches from Riviere-du-Loup to the Magdalen Islands and extends to both sides of the river, including part of
January 27, 1981

the North Shore, this special program does not apply to two cities, Rimouski and Sept-Iles, allegedly because their per capita income is a little bit over the regional average and their unemployment rate somewhat lower than the regional average.
If we examine the economic standing of the city of Rimouski in the whole territory I must admit that we wonder about Rimouski being excluded from a program which is extremely important and extremely interesting for a region such as ours. True, Rimouski is a service community, but it must be said that 83 per cent of the labour force in Rimouski are people who earn a living in the public, quasi-public and educational sectors. We have a regional hospital which provides jobs for many people and we also benefit from the decentralization of provincial and federal government services. People will agree with me, Mr. Chairman, that we have reached the saturation level when it comes to the decentralization of services, and we have even recorded a decrease in the number of jobs in provincial public and quasi-public services, particularly in the field of education.
This is what we find if we compare Rimouski to the rest of Canada, Quebec and other neighbouring cities. 1 would like to point out to hon. members that, according to the figures published in the Survey of Market in 1980 of the Financial Post, the per capita income in Canada was $7,225. For the province of Quebec, the per capita income was $6,563, for the Rimouski constituency, $5,160, for the city of Rimouski, $6,675, for the city of Riviere-du-Loup, $6,401, and for the city of Matane, $5,566. 1 must admit that 1 do not find these figures too depressing, but 1 am certainly upset about the figures for the per capita added value for the manufacturing sector in the city of Rimouski.
The per capita added value is $1,860 for Canada, $1,857 for Quebec, $483 for the county of Rimouski, but the city of Rimouski has only a $166 per capita added value for the manufacturing sector. For the city of Riviere-du-Loup, the figure is $1,563, and for Matane, $1,130. I must say, Mr. Chairman, that I am somewhat envious of the per capita added value for the manufacturing sector of Riviere-du-Loup and Matane, which are not excluded from this investment tax credit or rebate. I would also like the Minister of Finance to note the important role that the city of Rimouski can and does play in a region like the Lower St. Lawrence and the Gaspe peninsula. Rimouski is the most centrally located city in the region. It is true that we have government services. It is also true that we have a university, a community college and major teaching institutions, but it must also be said that Rimouski is seriously underprivileged as concerns manufacturing investments.
In this regard, these last few years, the city of Rimouski, and therefore all its residents, have benefited from assistance under certain federal programs to help create industrial com-
Income Tax Act
plexes and establish infrastructures so that businesses can settle in the area in the best conditions possible and as quickly as possible. This has been done especially thanks to financial assistance from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion totalling nearly $1,250,000 for the creation of industrial complexes. Tax credits are now being granted to an underprivileged area, but the city of Rimouski has been excluded.
1 would also like to note the economic conditions which now prevail on the North Shore, that is at Sept-Iles, Wabush, Schefferville and Fermont, where The Iron Ore Company has already announced the temporary or permanent lay-off of thousands of workers. This has a tremendous influence on the economic situation of the South Shore. For those of my colleagues who are not familiar with the area, I should point out that the Lower St. Lawrence and the Gaspe peninsula are located on the south shore of the St. Lawrence River and that the whole North Shore area is on the opposite side, as the name indicates.
Flowever, traditionally, since this great territory has been opened, manpower has been recruited on the South Shore. This means that those who lose their jobs on the North Shore come back to our region because they come from there. The regions which will now have to face a major demand for new jobs will be the regions of the Lower St. Lawrence and the Gaspe peninsula in particular, as well as the city of Rimouski.
Mr. Chairman, I wish the Department of Finance were now facing a completely different situation as concerns this investment tax credit, from which Sept-Iles and Rimouski were excluded on October 28. The announcements made by employers in the Sept-Iles area concerning the lay-off of thousands of workers were not expected on October 28, but this has caused major economic setbacks in the Sept-Iles area, so much so that the Departments of Employment and Immigration, Labour, and Industry, Trade and Commerce have found it necessary to create a fund or to implement a special assistance program amounting to $350 million to help workers in areas such as the North Shore, which we are now discussing, to find other jobs.
This program will help business create jobs and ensure workers' mobility, if they so desire. We must remember that an economic happening in one area can affect another area. The economic situation prevailing in my area and on the North Shore on October 28 was certainly not the same as it is now.
Things have changed. Rimouski is at the heart of an area which is well equipped to satisfy the requirements of potential investors and should be considered with regard to this 50 per cent investment tax credit. I think that has become a question of social justice. People who will be coming back to the South Shore, the Lower St. Lawrence and Gaspe areas will need jobs, so I wonder what our priority should be. Should we increase unemployment insurance funds or should we give entrepreneurs the opportunity to set up businesses in areas such as ours through reasonable tax credits that answer real

January 27, 1981
Income Tax Act
needs and help support the work undertaken by municipal authorities to turn the city into the important centre it is today and which naturally has economic repercussions on the whole area? The industrial and economic development of Rimouski could benefit all surrounding townships. When we speak of developing the Montreal area, we mean that very area and not as far down as Drummondville in the hope that it will affect the Montreal region. I think all this should be taken into consideration, given the fact that in this area there are three towns, Riviere-du-Loup, Rimouski and Matane, which need assistance because they have set up an infrastructure and opened industrial parks to meet investors' requirements. This was done with the help of government programs. It seems logical to me, considering that this area represents barely 1 per cent of the Canadian population, costs millions of dollars in unemployment insurance, and contains roughly 4 per cent of the Quebec population, and considering also that the local people have shown that they are able and willing to do good work, that the government, in view of the new economic situation, should re-open this case. It should also consider Rimouski on an equal footing with other cities, no more no less, with the same advantages, because municipal authorities have made considerable efforts to achieve a just and reasonable industrial development in an area which has suffered quite badly from socioeconomic hardships. 1 think the people of the entire area expect a great deal from a decision which, in their view, would be equitable and would answer their needs.


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-IVIoose Mountain):: Mr. Chairman, in the 20 minutes allotted to me on clause 1 of Bill C-54 I intend to put forward what 1 hope will be a reasoned and constructively designed proposal for the minister in the hope that he accepts the premise on which it is made, namely, how with this bill we can get more tax money into the hands of the minister by reducing taxes. With that objective in mind, I will discuss the question of renewable resources, how they are affected by several sections of this bill, and how I think this bill could be improved.
There is no question that every person knowing the problem of energy in Canada knows that no matter how you twist and turn, there has to be a concerted move toward the utilization of renewable energy to replace non-renewable energy.
At this time we have a number of low-grade technologies which are either in the economic ball park or are marginal. Therefore, we can achieve this objective. In the budget of the previous government, which we will call the Crosbie budget, an effort was made to free up this creative force among individual Canadians in order to get at the districts which have tremendous potential in renewable energy resources. I refer to the districts of the Gaspe, the Atlantic provinces, the great majority of Quebec and Ontario as well as British Columbia.
What have we done, tax-wise, to give incentives in order to move forward on the very necessary social and economic
purpose of reducing the cost of energy to our people and at the same time making more money for the tax collector? Surely those are two laudable objectives.
There is no use trying to pretend to the Canadian people that at the present time there should be an over-emphasis on attempting to encourage them to go into active solar heat, for example. The capital costs are so high in relation to the benefits that it is uneconomic, even with all sorts of incentives, grants and inducements. However, with other forms of indirect solar energy, particularly on the passive side, there are many examples of low-grade technologies which, as I said in my opening sentence, are either economic or close to it.
Solar water heaters were mentioned in the Crosbie budget. They are economically viable. It only costs $200 or $300 to heat water for a year, $500 in some cases, but you can show that $100 spent on this type of low-grade technology will give you $100 a year in savings at present prices. An incentive was therefore put in the Crosbie budget, namely, the removal of the sales tax. That did not make me too happy because I did not think it was a sufficient incentive. However, it was at least a start.
The Crosbie budget also talked about renewable energy equipment. Under the credit system, it gave a two-year writeoff of 100 per cent. If the equipment cost $3,000, $4,000 or $5,000, over a period of two years you could write it off at absolutely no cost to the government because we are not now collecting a penny on that type of equipment. There may be a few examples I do not know about, but generally speaking this type of renewable resource equipment is not being used in the way it should.
That deduction of 100 per cent would make a marginal operation attractive under the tax law proposed in the Crosbie budget. If you had to spend $4,000 and were allowed a write-off of 100 per cent over two years, the average person would save $2,000. Therefore, the capital equipment would cost only $2,000. If you saved $400 a year on that investment, you could pay that off in five years. I would think that of those who pay income tax today, to be able to save $400 or $500 a year indefinitely, and more than that in times of higher oil prices, a great majority would be willing to invest the $4,000 and recover $2,000 from their taxes over two years, they know they would get the $2,000 investment back in four or five years. From then on they would be away ahead of the game and be using a renewable energy source.
In the present budget and the bill we are discussing we have an equally well-inspired system. The government has replaced this tax reduction incentive. In return for taking a risk and investing your money in this type of thing, the government offers a grant of $800. That grant will cost money, but it is not enough to induce people to use that product. Therefore, the government will not have to spend a great deal as a result of this $800 grant. Some people will say it is even taxable, but that is not the real issue.
Which type of proposal would provide more revenue at the end of each year for the next three or four years? 1 suggest that the tax incentive route would do that. We do not collect
January 27, 1981

any money on this renewable resource equipment now. If just one million homes over a period of five years went into this type of investment, it is easy to multiply one million by $4,000. It amounts to $4 billion.
All that money being spent on something which has not been built before creates tremendous job opportunity. Who will collect the tax on all this money? We know that by the time the $4 billion original expenditure goes through the system, it yields about $8 billion to $10 billion. Of this $8 billion to $10 billion over this four or five-year period, governments will collect approximately 40 per cent.
Governments will collect 40 per cent of $10 billion over a five-year period. They are not collecting anything now. Over the next four or five years they will collect $4 billion or $5 billion, not a small amount. When you think of reducing the cost of heating homes and buildings by as much as 75 per cent a year for those who take the risk and the incentive, it will be very clear to those in the Department of Finance who can add and subtract what a tremendous amount of money this will represent.
If you take the other route, the one in this current legislation, which gives a grant of $800, you may have to pay out a few thousand dollars a year. If something costs you $4,000, that $800 will reduce it to $3,200. After you pay $400 in tax, you have a net cost of $3,600. With a $400-a-year saving, it will take nine years to pay off that amount. That is very marginal. Only a few thousand will take that approach.
I think I have made my point as clear as it has to be made for any person willing to listen. The best thing the minister can do is go home tonight and think this over. If he checks it out with his officials, he will find that what I have said is more than true. If he comes back prepared to move an amendment, and he can do that as government leader, even though it involves an expenditure of money, he will be serving his country well. Not only would there be more money for the tax collector to meet the deficit, but there would also be savings for many people.
There are 4.4 million homes in Canada today and many other buildings to be heated. Between 35 per cent and 40 per cent of our total energy requirements today in our cold climate go to heating buildings and homes. That is a large segment of our energy requirements.
Examples of these low grade technologies are well known. One is the windmill. We have had them for thousands of years. We are now moving forward so fast that in a year or two many of them will be money-making operations for those who buy them. They are not at the present time because you can get power cheaper now, for example, at one cent per kilowatt. With new technology coming on stream in the next year or so, the government would be well advised to realize how much power we can get from windy areas such as Algoma, along rivers and shorelines and particularly on the prairies.
Income Tax Act
We could be producing 3 per cent, 4 per cent or 5 per cent of the total energy needs of the country from these winds, and maybe more, but I think that is a safe guess.
The most obvious one is the one I have referred to many times, and that is the heat pump. We have had heat pumps in North America for 60 years. Women call them refrigerators. They take the heat out of food and dump it out onto the floor. A heat pump takes the heat out of the air, the ground, the water or any source you like, brings it up to the proper heat level and dumps it into the House.
The research for North America on this type of cold climate heat pump is being done in Canada. I think one American company will be making Canada its main production centre, but there must be a market in order to get people to do this. This type of investment I think will be around $4,000. 1 know the head research man in this one American company was hired on January 1 of this year by the National Research Council because the council wants his knowledge.
All the expertise is here in the civil service, and I know all the manufacturing capacity is here in Canada. There are not many heat pumps going out. I know they are scattered throughout Ottawa with maybe 30 or 40 sold this winter so far. I am talking about 300,000 or 400,000 of these things being sold every winter. The amount of employment, the amount of tax money rolled into the government and the number of extra people put to work on that one item alone means that for 15 years we will have growth and expansion in this type of production. Above all, if we can get this kind of saving, 50 per cent to 75 per cent per building each year by using the indirect heat of the sun, just think of the savings of our non-renewable resources.
In the Crosbie budget there was an item mentioned in two or three parts of that measure-alcohol stills. Alcohol stills are old devices for making energy. If we look at it from the typical economist's point of view, we will find that it does not pay commercial people to go into it because it costs too much to make. But, when we give the incentive to individuals to have stills, it will work because they do not count the time they spend watching as labour, particularly if they pay their wives for doing it and, get their wives tax deductions.
All 1 know is that 36 of the United States have legislation and incentives for this type of thing, but we do not have them in Canada now because we lost them when we defeated the Crosbie budget. This will only produce 3 per cent, 4 per cent or 5 per cent of energy needs, but this is such a promising idea we have people warning us that if we go too fast and too far with it, we will begin to take up good grain land to produce what is needed to put into stills. That is not going to bother most of us because we know enough in the agricultural field to know that we have not begun to reach the potential productivity of our farms. We can produce all the energy we need to run these devices without cutting into our present productivity at all.

January 27, 1981
Income Tax Act
Stills are all but gone, but the police would be glad to be relieved of the task of searching all the bluffs and trees looking for stills. Half the population of the prairies brought that knowledge from Europe and could still use it. One per cent of housewives still use stills in their houses. They call it by a different name, but it is still a still.
I am simply pointing out that all these ideas, whether they be stills, windmills, heat pumps, transfer of heat from waste water going out of houses or anything else, will produce energy and reduce consumption of our non-renewable resources.
Let me talk about that latter point. We know now as a result of research at the University of Saskatchewan that with the expenditure of just $100 on a device for a water heater in the individual home you can save $100 to $150 a year. This device has been shown in a diagram by the research council in Saskatchewan, but there is not a single province in Canada outside Saskatchewan that allows it.
Every time you take a shower or a bath and dump all that heat into the sewer you are wasting money and energy. With a simple device-just running it by the water tank, taking out the heat and then sending the water out to the sewer-you can save yourself $100 to $150 a year. You can save yourself $150 with just a little pipe connection. Every province should be cracked on the head and have it pointed out that there is a saving. They should be asked why they have regulations saying you cannot take the heat out of that waste water, which is called "grey" water.
I think I have made enough points to prove, at least to my satisfaction, that there is a tremendously large number of examples of low-grade technology that are either economically sound now or are marginal, and that the government would not lose a dollar, but would make hundreds of millions, and billions, of dollars over a period of years, by providing incentives rather than adopting this kind of procedure, which is not enough.
1 think I have five minutes more, but I want to close with a final appeal. What 1 have said is not new to many people in Canada. Canada leads the world today in its knowledge of the use of biomass. In any area where you can grow trees you can make all the energy this world needs seven times over without even trying. Canada led the world in that regard, but what are we doing about it? Are we giving grants? When you give grants to scientific people, they want to spend four, ten or twenty years proving every little detail before moving to the next step.
I remember in 1972-or in 1973, I think it was; I have forgotten which-I asked the Minister of Agriculture if he had heard of biomass. He had not heard of biomass, so I asked the then minister of energy. The University of Manitoba had been trying for years to get a $4,000 grant to prove that you could get a tremendous amount of food and energy from a little green thing that grows in the water when it is warm-algae. Manitoba finally got its grant after two or three years of bugging. What are the scientists doing? They are busy breeding this algae; they will be breeding them from now until kingdom come, trying to find out which algae is most prolific.
All that is good. I am simply saying that government has to move a little faster than it is under the present situation. If we could provide an incentive for translating that idea into producing protein or energy, we should do so.
Second, the Government of Canada and the Ontario Research Foundation got together years ago to prove up the technique of taking the waste product from a high-rise in Canada, cooling that whole high-rise building and heating it almost entirely with those waste products. This has been in operation for nearly ten years in Ontario.
When I asked the minister seven years ago whether he would tell the people about it and let the world know about this new development he said, "Oh, no, you tell them, 1 won't." He would not because he was frightened that Canadians would be upset to learn that we were taking heat out of water and heating the whole house. That broke the hearts of many scientists and practical people in Ontario and in the National Research Council. The government would not tell the people what had been done. No patents were taken out on that.
Therefore, I ask the minister, please, to take a look at these proposals. 1 do not mean any political harm to the government. I think it would help the government tremendously if it looked at these things to see if I am not right. It could make much more money for itself as a tax collector, and at the same time help the individuals of this country and the nation economically. Thank you.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Chairman, I am addressing my remarks primarily to the Minister of Finance, who I see is taking his seat opposite. After speaking on this subject earlier today, referring to page 33 of the bill, which deals with cash accounting, page 28, which deals with the minimal 3 per cent inventory allowance, touching upon capital gains tax and moving on from there to areas affecting farmers and other segments of society, I came to the conclusion over the dinner hour that perhaps behind this particular piece of legislation there might be some ulterior motive on the part of the government. When we entered the last election campaign, this government made certain commitments we expected to see first in the budget, then in the energy policy and then in proposed tax measures that affect individuals in Canada.
Let us take that into consideration and give credit where it is due. I am sure many Canadians suspected that some of those promises would become reality, but we did not see them in any policies. We saw the government shift away from the free enterprise system in Canada to a system which aligned itself with the principles of our friends to the left, the socialists. When we on this side of the House saw all this, we started to wonder whether we were dealing with the Liberal Party of Canada, the New Democratic Party of Canada, or the Liberal-democratic party.
Hon. members opposite have said that this bill is responsive to the business community and to the citizens of Canada. Let me draw to the attention of the House a statement made by
January 27, 1981

hon. members opposite which defines their economic policies as they would affect Canada. Backbenchers have used it in their remarks across Canada, and I have excerpts from the newspapers. The Minister of Finance, and his increasingly embarrassed backbenchers, have referred to his economic policy as being one of gradualism. 1 took it upon myself during the dinner hour to look up what "gradualism" means, and 1 refer everyone in the House to Roget's new edition of the vocabulary of economic theory. This is what the Minister of Finance is proposing by adopting a policy of gradualism. According to the definition in the dictionary of economic theory the following are similes for gradualism: sluggard, slow-march, mincing steps, dog-trot, slackening, retardation, creeping and slowness. What we have in the bill before the House today is a creeping, slow dog-trot. It is sluggish, and the minister is mincing steps with the people of Canada.
What the minister is saying is that even though he committed himself to fighting to keep the expenses of the government as low as the gross national product-those are his words and those are the words of the Prime Minister-what has happened in reality is that the gross national product in Canada is up only 11.1 per cent. But what has been the growth of the government following the budget and during the short term when the finance minister has been in office? I will remind the minister that the growth of government is up 12.8 per cent.
If the government continues to spend 25 per cent more than it takes in each year, there is only one place from which the government can get the shortfall, that is through taxation. The government uses every means at its disposal to expropriate multinational investments from the free enterprise system in Canada. What happens is that it discourages Canadian investment in Canada and drives oil rigs out of this country. Oil rigs are lining up at the border. Canadian investors are prepared to spend up to $200,000 to move one oil rig across the border. Oil rigs are crossing the border at the rate of 70, 80 and 90, and the forecasts are that they will exceed 100 in the imminent future. That is costing Canada jobs. Every time we lose a job in Canada and every time a man does not have a paycheque to take home, I say to the finance minister that he is not living up to his responsibility as finance minister, and has failed to force his colleagues in the cabinet, through the budget he introduced, to bring in measures to create employment.
What did the Prime Minister say when he was leader of the opposition? He promised Canadian citizens that he would negotiate a fair price with the western provinces and, through negotiations, keep the price of gas at less than 14 cents. I purchased gas this week and found that it is up 50 cents in one year.
What did the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce promise the Canadian people when he was campaigning to be elected? He said that if he was in the cabinet, he would resign if interest rates rose higher than they were at the time the Conservatives were in power. What has happened? Interest rates have gone up 39 per cent. The Minister of Finance introduced his budget on October 28, two and half short months ago, and what did the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Income Tax Act
Commerce do about it? Has he resigned? Did he live up to his commitment to the Canadian people that if interest rates rose higher than they were when the Conservatives were in office- it was 14 per cent then-he would resign.
What is the small businessman paying today in interest rates because the finance minister has refused to bring in a tax measure which would encourage businessmen to stay in business and farmers to stay on their farms? He is driving them out of business at the rate of some 2,000. That was the figure for last year in Ontario alone. In the small business sector, there were over 5,000 bankruptcies in Canada. What does the small business sector mean to Canada? What does it mean to this government as it endeavours to raise taxes to meet its excessive spending?
The government absolutely refuses to cut the size of the bureaucracy. When the Conservatives were in government, we took major steps to reduce the size of the civil service. What has happened since this government took over? The Liberals, together with the socialists to my left-these Liberal-democrats-have allowed the civil service to expand through expropriation in the private sector. In reality what they are doing is discouraging free enterprise. They are moving its strength into the public sector, driving entrepreneurs and free enterprise people out of Canada and sending them to other parts of the world where they can make a living unencumbered by government and where the free enterprise system can function.
There is nothing more serious than the erosion of the system we have grown to respect and enjoy in Canada. It disheartened me to see the Liberal backbenchers return to their ridings this past Christmas, look their constituents in the face and say, "You do not need an energy tax credit, you do not need a mortgage interest deduction program, you do not need a property tax deduction, and you do not need any concessions in the energy policy which we introduced so successfully through closure in the House of Commons."
I predict that many members on the benches opposite will not be sitting there after the next federal election. Through their leader they introduced very carefully only four promises during the last federal election campaign, and they broke every promise to the provinces and to the people of Canada. They did not create an industrial strategy, which the Prime Minister said they would do, a strategy which would increase the number of jobs, spur growth and increase Canadian ownership. They are driving Canadian ownership out of existence. They joke about it. They are led by a man who pulls the strings, and the puppets and marionettes to my left stand up and vote in unison "Aye". The Liberal-democratic party of Canada is driving ownership out of this country through the Constitution, through their energy policy, through the budget and now through this income tax measure, which utterly fails to acknowledge the desires of the farming community with regard to the capital gains tax. What about the three generations from grandfather to son to grandson? If the minister does not respond to the needs of the farming community, farmers will lose their farms because they will not be able to afford them. Under this bill they will be forced to sell them to pay

January 27, 1981
Income Tax Act
accumulated capital gains, which could amount to sums greater than the selling prices of the farms.
At least the Conservative budget recognized the need for farms to remain in the hands of third and fourth generation farmers. There are many of them in the minister's riding and in his province, yet he refused to look at Canfarm and say that it was there for the benefit of the farm community. Approximately 30 per cent of the minister's farming constituents were involved in Canfarm. The government found $40 million for the big multinational oil company, Imperial Oil, when it threatened to stop its oil projects out west. The government found $40 million at the snap of a finger in a budget which spends 25 per cent more than it takes in, but it could not find $3 million to keep Canfarm alive for the farmers in his province, as well as those in the province of Ontario.
The government could not formulate an industrial strategy to create jobs. The last promise of the Prime Minister when he was leader of the opposition was that he would fight to increase jobs; he said he would ensure an industrial strategy was developed to increase employment. But what has happened in reality? The number of people unemployed in Canada has risen to more than one million. It is a remarkable increase; it is even greater than the growth in government spending. The government should control its spending and reduce the bureaucracy, which forces on the people of Canada a metric system and a constitution they do not want. It is not always cabinet; it is the bureaucracy which controls cabinet in many cases.
When cabinet ministers make commitments which the Prime Minister nullifies, how can Parliament have credibility with the people of Canada? How can we be expected to go home and say, "The Government of Canada agrees because the minister said so", when the next day the minister says that that is not the way it will happen? That is exactly what happened with respect to the four election promises of the present government. That is what is happening in this measure, which places undue pressure upon the small business community of Canada.
Apparently small business can borrow money on the government bond issue. 1 challenge the Minister of Finance to provide a list of all people who have borrowed on that bond issue without conditions being placed upon them by the banks. Is the Minister of Finance aware of the fact that there are
400,000	small businessmen in the province of Ontario? Does he know how many loans have been made to small businesses because of the restrictions put on them and which the government refuses to lessen? Does the minister know how many loans have been made to the 400,000 small businessmen in Ontario? There were 788 loans made in 1978 through the Small Businesses Loans Act to small businessmen. Is the minister able to respond by indicating the number of loans which have been made under that bond issue? Why will the availability of this bond issue to small business expire on March 31, 1981? Does the minister not have enough faith in
the business people of Canada to give them at least a year to take advantage of some interest relief? The government does not want to give any interest relief to home owners or small businessmen. Before this bill is passed, would the minister allow an amendment to come forward which would extend the bond issue to at least the end of this calendar year? Then the small business community and the banking institutions would know that the Minister of Finance cares, and a bank would not have to lend money to a small businessman with the condition that should this bill not go through before the expiry date of the loan the interest rate will be 21 per cent.
We need a little compassion and concern. We should show Canadians that we are not moving completely to the left and that to be successful everything does not have to be under public ownership. The government should create a climate which allows business to function free of government pressure and without the government in its pocket. The government should realize that the country would run better if government got out of the marketplace and let business function as it was intended when the settlers first came here, as Canada and its business community grew and before the Liberal government joined ranks with the NDP to form the first socialist government of Canada.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal with only two cases to follow up on one or two of the statements made by other members.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gordon Edward Taylor: When the conversation across the floor stops, I will be able to continue with the debate. I have nothing against the other side, so I will not speak against them. Many people in the country are very concerned about income taxes and the Income Tax Act. I thought tonight I would bring to the attention of the hon. minister and his departmental officials two cases which illustrate how frustrating it can be for Canadians when certain officials of the income tax branch of the Department of National Revenue start acting in a very officious manner.
But first I should like to give credit to the people in the Department of National Revenue who try to help people. There are others who will not turn a hand unless they are trying to work against the taxpayer. I think the Minister of Finance should know about these two cases because they are bad ones. The Minister of National Revenue knows about them, and I appreciate his effort in trying to correct them. The reason I am bringing these matters to the attention of the minister is that I feel there must be some changes to the act.
The first case is that of a widow whose husband died in Saskatchewan. She moved to Alberta. Before leaving Saskatchewan she filled in two income tax forms, one for the federal government and one for the provincial government. She received advice from someone that that was what she had to do, so that is what she did. When she arrived in Alberta, she received word from the department that she should have filled in only one form. So she immediately went to a highly
January 27, 1981

qualified insurance agent in the city in which she lived. He filled in the one form and sent it in on her behalf. Of course, she paid to have that done. Her 1978 assessment was dated June 26, 1979. The provincial tax was assessed at some $258 and the federal tax at $370. Tax deductions were applied, which gave her a credit of $1,618. The payment made on filing left her $781, and the refund interest assessed was $24. The department sent her a cheque for $1,795. She was delighted. She not only received all the money she had sent, but some more, which apparently should not have been paid. Any widow who has no husband to earn for her and who is living on a fixed income would be happy to receive a refund of $1,700 from the Department of National Revenue. That took place on June 26.
On December 7, 1979, she received another letter from the Department of Revenue stating that the provincial tax had been reassessed. The amount had increased from $258 to $982. The letter informed her the federal tax had been reassessed; the amount had increased from $370 to $2,550. The interest arrears were adjusted to $167, and the refund interest recaptured was $24. She now owed the department $3,725. I ask hon. members to bear in mind that these are the same forms which were assessed on June 26. No additional forms had been sent in. The widow was very worried. Instead of having $1,795 to her credit she suddenly found she had a debt. Before receiving that information she received a letter from the department telling her that the computer had made a mistake and had sent her the $1,795 in error. Almost immediately she returned the $1,795 to the department.
On December 7, 1979, she received a reassessment. The department was now charging her $3,725. She was overwhelmed. Then 1980 arrived, and she received another letter stating that the arrears on interest had been adjusted to $92. This raised her total debt to $3,818. Then she received another letter. The department reassessed her situation. The provincial tax was reassessed, which gave her a credit of $218 instead of a debit of $982. The federal tax had been reassessed allowing her a credit of $566 instead of a debit of $2,550, and the interest on arrears was adjusted to $67. A tax deduction of $51 was credited. The department then sent her a bill for $2,915 in place of the bill for $3,800 which she had received a few months before. That, at least, was a saving to her. She did not know how on earth she would obtain all this money, but she was in receipt of the bill, and there was a reduction. But not for very long; she soon received another letter on March 9, 1980. The reassessment was March 7. The letter informed her she was entitled to a credit of $1,665. The interest arrears were readjusted; the department found $5.44 more. The arrears were adjusted again to $12, and then to $7. She now owes $1,275. Does anybody wonder about a woman receiving this kind of bookkeeping?
That was not the end of it. On May 23 she received another reassessment. The provincial tax was reassessed to $159. The federal tax was reassessed to $414. The interest on arrears was adjusted to $59. Then the interest arrears were adjusted
Income Tax Act
again to $8.82, then again to $6.86, and then to $14. This is contained in a statement she received from the department. I am not making these figures up. Imagine a widow receiving a statement like this!
She then made a payment of $1,630, which left her owing $1,938. The payment of $1,630 was all she could scrape up at the time. Of course, the figures were then readjusted and there was added interest on arrears. They are now charging her interest because the computer made a mistake and sent her $1,700 which she had for a month. They are now charging her interest on the $1,700 which were sent to her in error.
Those are the figures to date. We are expecting another reassessment at any time. The interest on arrears adjustment gave her a credit of $208. She now owes the department $121.74. I might add that these last three adjustments, which were in her favour, were carried out with the co-operation of the Minister of National Revenue. I believe he is as disgusted with this situation as I. The bookkeeping is so bad in this case that I have asked the Minister of National Revenue to close it out. Surely we cannot antagonize our citizens with readjustment after readjustment and reassessment after reassessment. It would drive anybody crazy. And all of this is being done to a widow who is trying to be honest. She would not think of cheating anyone out of five cents, let alone the amounts I have been talking about. Now she owes $121.74. I think the men who have been doing this should pay that $121.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: This woman should be told by the government that we will not put up with this kind of bookkeeping.


Donald W. Munro: Then they should be fired.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Yes, then they should be fired. People who do that kind of work do the government no good. The case I have been talking about is an actual one. Hon. members can obtain a copy of the statement from the minister of revenue if they wish.
The other case I would like to deal with has even more far-reaching ramifications. It is something which frightens me. I refer to the "deemed income" contained in the act. The hon. member for Portage-Marquette spoke about this a few minutes ago. I wish to deal with it because I do not think deemed income has any place in our legislation. It is a totalitarian concept which can ruin any farmer in this country, if it is applied in the way this legislation permits. It has been applied in one or two cases and, again, they were settled only through the intervention of the minister of revenue. I am sure he is not prepared to put up with this kind of nonsense. I raise this matter tonight because I think the Minister of Finance should give some serious consideration to taking this deemed income out of the act.
I would like to show hon. members what happened in this particular case. It is one case, but I am fearful that if the circumstances were to occur in many places our farmers could

January 27, 1981
Income Tax Act
be ruined. There is no defence for it. Blood ran up and down my spine when I heard about this case. I am sure the minister will feel the same way; 1 certainly hope so.
Here is the story, as briefly as possible. It involves a farmer who had five sons. They were all of mature age, and all of them wanted to be farmers. The father did not have enough money to set his sons up with separate machinery, nor did he have enough money to turn the land over to them. This is because he did not have the money to pay the capital gains tax. This case, if followed through, illustrates what the hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills was saying in the House the other day. It has to do with the ill effects of capital gains.
The farmer went to a law firm for advice. They advised him to set up a family corporation. These events took place in 1974 and have been related to quite a few people in this country. They were advised to set up a family corporation and then to custom farm the land in order that the sons could utilize the father's machinery. The father could not afford to put his land into the corporation, since he had to have something to live on. So he did not put his land into the corporation.
They began to custom farm with the father's machinery. The five sons intended gradually to build up an estate and become farmers in their own right. All this occurred in 1974. The farm went in the hole for three years. In one year it lost $50,000, which is not unusual. The best farm in the country can have a bad year. I have seen it happen many times. Of course, they can also have good breaks and earn a lot of money. But in this instance the family suffered bad weather and so on and, as a result, lost $50,000.
Hon. members can imagine how the members of this family felt when suddenly they received a notice from the Department of National Revenue with regard to their 1975, 1976 and 1977 income tax returns. The department said that the family was deemed to have disposed of an intangible property, that being the right to use the farm land. Consequently, the family was deemed to have received proceeds equal to fair market value from the corporation. The fact of the matter was that the corporation had not made any money. However, it was deemed to have used this intangible asset, the land.
As a result, the family was assessed for each of the three sections of land $32,800 for each year, although it had made no money. They had gone into the hole because they had used their machinery in the corporation on what is called intangible property and were deemed to have made so much money that they must pay more than $95,000 in taxes. I can understand why the minister would shake his head, because it is absolutely astounding.
I decided to look at the act in an effort to understand the situation. Section 69 of the act, which is not amended in this legislation, says that except as otherwise provided in the act, where a taxpayer has acquired anything from a person with whom he was not dealing at arm's length at an amount in excess of fair market value thereof at the time he so acquired it, he shall be deemed to have acquired it at that fair market
value. One would think that if the farmer was deemed to have earned this income, then surely it would be deemed that there were certain expenses but, oh no, he cannot deem that.
The family appealed the decision. The inspector general said that it could not be deemed that there were any expenses, merely that there was income from a farm which went in the hole.


Donald W. Munro: You're deemed if you do and you're deemed if you don't.


Gordon Edward Taylor: The matter was taken to the appeal board, and it took the position that, because of the way in which the act was written, it had no power to change the situation. One wonders why one would take the time to go before an appeal board, when it cannot change anything. One official of the department said that the tax laws have been gradually changing-and the minister would know about that better than I, because I have not been here for very long-since 1970 with a view to so-called deemed income assessment and that eventually everyone would be assessed accordingly one way or another.
I am sure that no government would want to put farmers out of business, but this department official suggested that this was the plan.
The total deemed income for this farm for 1977 was $161,000, without a dollar of offsetting expenses. If income is to be deemed, then anyone who has ever stood on an acre of land, let alone farmed it, would know that there must be expenses in order to earn that much money. The situation was even more aggravating because the farm had lost money in those years.
To make matters worse, the sons had borrowed money to buy machinery. As it was insisted that the loans be private, National Revenue attacked each boy and each boy began to get it in the neck. I have here a letter which one of the boys received.


Donald W. Munro: He was deemed, too.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Yes, he was deemed too. According to this letter, the boy would be charged almost $5,000, even though he was not making any money.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: 1 regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I thank hon. members. The matter was appealed, and corrective action had begun when the PC government came into office. However, the matter was not completed, and the case was brought to me after the last election. I referred it to the Minister of National Revenue, and I appreciate the understanding which he showed. Although the minister did not say so, I am sure that he had the same feelings as 1, that this situation should not occur.
To make a sad story happy, the department was ordered, I believe, by the minister, to repay all the money which it had
January 27, 1981

taken. This man had almost been ruined. His credit rating at the bank was gone. The money which was deemed as having to be paid almost put him into bankruptcy. He almost became a broken man wondering how he would help his sons to set up their farms. And, all those agonizing years are still to be remembered.
1 ask the minister: Is there any place for such legislation in our country? I would like to see deemed income taken out of the act so such situations will never occur in Canada again.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak about Bill C-54 as it applies to the tax policies which affect, in a rather negative way, housing prices in Canada today. In particular, I hope the minister and his government will explain how MURB tax write-offs, which are a part of this legislation, will help solve the housing prices faced by Canadians who are tenants, many of whom have no choice but to remain as tenants.
1 would like to ask what steps the government plans to take in its taxation policy to slow down the spiralling costs of homes and to cool the excessive speculation which is taking place in cities like Vancouver and the other six cities in Canada which have zero vacancy. These speculators are exploiting the current housing situation. Finally, I hope to convince the Minister of Finance and his colleagues that, in view of high housing prices in Canada, which have been created largely by drastically high interest rates, action must be taken very soon to implement a national economic recovery program in the housing sector, a program which we in the NDP believe should be a top priority in economic and social planning in Canada.
Before 1 proceed with specific questions on Bill C-54 I should like to repeat what we believe must be the basic housing philosophy for Canadians. Instead of leasing from the private sector and being faced with the impossible housing crisis which we have today, we believe that decent, affordable shelter, whether rental or home ownership, is a basic need and right of all Canadians.
This means we must have government planning, and we must have it now. We hope most Canadians will be able to raise families in homes they own.
Contrary to the myth the Conservatives put out today, the NDP does not believe there are no property rights for Canadians. We believe very much that it would be highly desirable for most Canadians to own their own homes, not necessarily large luxurious homes on very large lots but at least homes with three bedrooms and outdoor space costing no more than 25 per cent of an individual's income. Unfortunately, we all know that under the present policies of the Liberal government and those of the former Conservative government, home ownership is only a dream for young people in Canada today.
Who can afford a downpayment, much less the exorbitant monthly payments caused by very high interest rates, which are now up to 15 per cent or 16 per cent on what have to be short-term mortgages these days? In the city I come from it
Income Tax Act
takes not just two wage earners but three wage earners to begin to get enough money together to make the monthly payments. It also means, of course, that those who are making payments on homes will not own them in their lifetimes.
Many people who were trapped into short-term mortgages and AHOP-type mortgage plans have been faced with foreclosures or, in AHOP cases, people sometimes just walked away because they could not afford to keep up payments on renewed mortgages at the increased rates.
The only people in Canada who have any housing security are those lucky enough to own their homes outright. I should like to say that this is not the situation with high income families alone. I spoke about this in the House already today, and I also spent a good deal of time with people from Newfoundland, most of whom own their homes in the little fishing villages of the northern peninsula. It is a shocking indictment of the Liberal government, and in particular the minister responsible for CMHC, that the RRAP home repair program in those communities has been terminated without notice. Many of these people own their small cottages outright, and had repaired them as a hedge against inflation.
What has the government done for home owners, Mr. Chairman? Nothing very much since the last budget, certainly. Will the government intervene in the desperate economic situation that exists in many cities in an effort to de-escalate speculation in housing? Many times in this House I have given examples of what happens in the greater Vancouver region, which I represent. We also know that because of the housing shortage in cities like St. John's, Calgary and Vancouver, prices are escalating far beyond the real value of the homes. Every day I hear about a house bought in the morning and sold in the afternoon with a commission of sometimes as much as $15,000 going to a real estate agent, if the sale is in my city. We have asked the Minister of Finance to do something about this. We hope he will consider it as part of taxation policy. We think it is absolutely essential that steps be taken to de-escalate and control this form of speculation. It seems to us that the sensible course would be to increase the capital gains tax on homes other than primary residences from 50 to 100 per cent. People speculating in housing prices and who are exploiting the situation by reaping huge profits are putting the price of housing up every time there is a resale.
Just this week in the House I asked the minister to do something about this situation. He said that his answer, in the interest of brevity, was "no". He did not give any reason, so I hope he will give one tonight. As far as I can make out, he has not given consideration to some of the views of CMHC officials or those of the minister responsible for CMHC. It is absolutely essential that alternatives be offered so that there can be some control over this immoral speculation in housing.
I also asked the minister responsible for CMHC to assist with land-banking programs in municipalities. He could start today by granting some requests such as those made recently by the mayor of Vancouver and by using some of the funds left in the community service grants program. He has refused to accede to the request of the mayor of Vancouver for $15

January 27, 1981
Income Tax Act
million to establish a land-bank fund, saying he had to wait until a real estate conference was held in March before he could make any plans or a decision. Why do we have to wait for advice from real estate interests before getting on with the business of doing what is obviously essential, establishing a land bank or, preferably, a system of leasing public lands in order to provide affordable housing for Canadians?
1 should like to present the NDP position on the taxation on capital gains, which we believe must be part of a housing strategy and part of a national economic program in the housing sector. In a research paper put out for our party, the section dealing with taxation of capital gains states that at present capital gains are taxed at only half the rate of other income, which is counter to the principle of tax equity- particularly since only the upper income groups are able to reduce their taxes payable in this way. The paper further states that Canada ranks lowest among OECD countries in its effective rate of tax on wealth.
In addition, of the capital gains reported to government in 1978, 52.8 per cent of the $2.3 billion capital gains reported by individuals was derived from profitable deals in real estate; 67.6 per cent of the $1.6 billion in capital gains reported by corporations was also derived from real estate.
We can see what a vastly important area the capital gains tax covers when it is related to the housing sector. The research paper continues by saying that since principal residences are exempt in any case, and since this system has made the few who can afford to be real estate speculators rich, while beggaring the rest of the citizens, who have increasingly had the doors to home ownership slammed in their faces, the government should change the capital gains tax to include all income derived from the sale of real estate. Of course, we believe very strongly that principal residences must be exempt from this kind of tax.
Mr. Chairman, "no" is not good enough for the people of Canada. It is certainly not good enough for this party. We want an explanation as to why the minister refuses to increase the capital gains tax. We want to know what alternatives, if any, he proposes in order to do something about this immoral speculation, which is putting the cost of housing beyond the reach of all young people today.
There is another taxation policy about which 1 have spoken many times in the House and which we strongly oppose as part of Bill C-54. I am referring to clause 20(13) of the regulations concerning MURBs and capital cost allowance. We all recognize there is a great need in most Canadian cities for more rental accommodation. No one would deny this. Affordable rental accommodation is especially needed for families, pensioners and other average and low-income people who cannot get into home ownership. They will never be able to be home owners. Statistics show that well over 50 per cent of Canadians will have no choice but to remain tenants for all of their lives. We have to have a realistic solution to the whole problem of affordable housing for tenants. People need housing at 25 per
cent of their incomes, not at the 60 per cent level of their incomes, which is what many senior citizens and those on fixed incomes are paying today.
People need decent rental accommodation, not the kind of accommodation which many single people have, not the kind of accommodation people on low incomes in inner cities have, nor the dumpy hotels or rooming houses which are fire traps and infested with cockroaches. This kind of accommodation is a disgrace in a country like Canada. We should not put funds into tax write-offs, as proposed under the MURB system included in the minister's budget this year. We want the building of affordable rental accommodation. This can only be done through the kinds of non-profit programs which are essential and which should be supported by the federal government, by municipalities and provinces as well.
Instead, the federal government introduced MURBs, a direct response to real estate interests, developers and investors who want to make a quick buck out of the housing crisis. I want to quote from an article by Michael Valpy on this question. I know his research is very good because we helped him out ourselves. He said:
At any rate, we got MURBs. MURBs are multiple-unit residential buildings (apartment buildings, in short) which wealthy people put up money to build.
Here is a simple definition of how they work: Wealthy people put up money to build MURBs because of a tax provision that allows them to write off a percentage of the total costs of the building-not just the amount of money they invest in it-against their income.
That is the total cost of the building. The article continues:
Thus a wealthy doctor or lawyer making $100,000 a year decides to build a $500,000 MURB. He invests a bit of his own and borrows the rest. Under the MURB provisions, he can write off four per cent of the total cost-or $25,000- each year against his income. Meaning he will only pay income tax on 75 per cent of what he earns.
At the same time, the building appreciates in value, particularly if it is a high-rent, or luxury, building (which most MURBs are).
They are not affordable housing for the average or low-income people. Mr. Valpy's article continues:
Then after a few years, the wealthy doctor or lawyer sells the MURB at a substantial profit (which a lot of them do), having made a good deal on both their investments and their tax shelters.
In his budget speech, Mr. MacEachcn called MURBs 'an important new initiative* as an 'incentive for the construction* of rental housing.
I wonder how he feels about it today.


Mr. Knowles:: His face is red.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Valpy goes on to say:
In fact, it is hard to find evidence that MURBs have done anything more than benefit the well-to-do-those who build them and those who live in them. Few MURBs have been built for family housing or low-income housing. Family housing was demolished in Vancouver's Grandview district to make way for single and couple-occupancy apartments, many of them MURB-financed.
Canada's foremost housing economist, Frank Clayton of Toronto, believes that the budget's MURB provision will do little to alleviate the shortage. The disincentives of high interest rates and rent controls will probably counteract the MURB dangled carrot.
In fact, they have. I understand very few investors are taking advantage of this program because the interest rates are so high. Mr. Valpy goes on to say:
January 27, 1981

In ihe face of those construction disincentives, co-operative and non-profit housing ventures appear a better vehicle but there was no help in the budget for them.
We find this is one of the main complaints we have about this bill being discussed in committee tonight.
In conclusion, we believe that to counteract the present problems a plan for an economic recovery in the housing field must include a lowering of interest rates so that construction of rental accommodation is stimulated and the cost of financing individual home ownership comes down into the real world. We want to revitalize CMHC, with direct lending powers to the public. We also want a greater emphasis by CMHC on non-profit and co-operative housing projects. I have asked the minister, who is sitting here tonight, why he cannot approach the banks to require them to invest the enormous profits they have made from high interest rates in a lending portfolio. This would bring down mortgage rates, and it could provide mortgage assistance to those Canadians earning under $35,000.
We also want restoration of the community services contribution program. This is very important if municipalities are to service land and buy up and preserve land for affordable housing. We think the government should allocate $250 million to this program. Of course, we believe there must be a direct leasing of serviced lots for housing on Crown lands. We believe that mortgage finance assistance is needed for low-income and average-income families. A much tougher capital gains tax is needed to end speculation in land, which causes even further housing price increases.


Mr. Gustafson:: Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege for me to speak about Bill C-54. The basic problems which exist because of the Income Tax Act are such that they are having an effect on the economy, an effect on the small businessman and an effect on farmers, all of which are counterproductive. This is the same type of effect government policy has on the oil industry today. In Saskatchewan, the oil industry is flat on its back, and I mean it is flat on its back. There are hundreds of people out of work. Yet, the Minister of Employment and Immigration comes to Saskatchewan and announces $4 million of taxpayers' money is to be allocated to give people jobs to provide service which is not needed.
As I have only one minute, 1 will deal with the topic of capital gains taxes as they apply to farms. The minister and the government told farmers the valuation day would be changed from December 31, 1971, to 1974. To date this has not been done. Many farmers are having very serious problems transferring their farms from one generation to another because of the capital gains provision.
This government, it seems, is saying that that is not its concern.
Progress reported.
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, on January 19 I asked the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) for a statement with regard to what had been done about the special task force report on regulatory reform. For six months a small group of members of Parliament, on a non-partisan basis, together with an excellent staff, worked extremely hard to prepare a report that would aid the government in attempting to get a handle on those who make regulations, the process of making regulations and other possibilities to simplify the process and eliminate some of the difficulties of the private sector in dealing with bureaucrats.
What kind of answer did I get? I got an answer that answered nothing. The President of the Treasury Board said, among other things, that the report was not gathering dust, that the government was looking it over and that in the area of reform of regulatory process things were being considered. I must say it was a very equivocal answer. He said, in effect, that it is being considered.
I rise to speak tonight because the guts of the report, the important recommendations, were not even referred to in the minister's answer. 1 might add that I looked very diligently at his speech in Toronto last Thursday to the advisory committee of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, and again there was a vast wasteland of silence on the most important recommendation of the report. That is why I rise to expand on the question and hopefully to get specific information, not bafflegab or platitudes signifying promises but no commitment from the government.
1 must say that in the field of regulations and reform, the enemy is not the government nor those with ministerial responsibilities, not the Liberals, Progressive Conservatives or the NDP, but the bureaucratic system itself, the mandarins with the power to delay, the bureaucrats with the ability to mislead and persuade otherwise and a cobwebbed, built-in inertia that frustrates all members of Parliament.
My question is in relation to the recommendations in the report dealing with a special parliamentary committee to oversee the work of reform in the regulatory process. Recommendations Nos. 18 and 19 read as follows:
We recommend that a special committee on government regulation be established to function until required parliamentary reforms are implemented. We recommend that the special committee on government regulation monitor the government's process in implementing regulatory reform and oversee the regulatory activities and processes of federal departments and agencies.

January 27, 198 I
Adjournment Debate
That is the guts of the report, a committee on a non-partisan basis to call before it bureaucrats to explain their actions, not two years down the road as is the case with public accounts, but now, immediately, a committee not only to watchdog the bureaucrats but also to serve as a burr under a minister's saddle to ensure that things get done, not delayed, waylaid or forgotten. Such a committee also serves the very useful purpose of giving the private sector a place to complain about arrogant decisions by bureaucrats. As it now stands, those who make judgments judge themselves. Is it not about time Parliament had just a little bit of its power to control government returned and asked in a proper forum for detailed answers to questions involving the control of the civil service in its regulatory functions?
The minister's answer did not deal with this vital recommendation of the report. I can only say that if the government intends to keep the whole process of regulatory reform within the secret cocoon of the minister's office and if it is this government's intention to hide the facts from Parliament and to attempt the clean-up in privacy without parliamentary authority and responsibility being considered, then it surely is another black mark on an already tarnished government that prefers to do in secret that which should be done publicly in the parliamentary tradition.
May 1 have a response to the specific question as to the government's intention with respect to an open policy and allowing parliamentary sunlight into the process, or, as implied by the silence of the President of the Treasury Board, is the process to be carried on secretly and subject to the inertia of the bureaucrats?
Parliament needs answers. Will the government immediately set up such a parliamentary committee, as the report suggests? Will the government allow Parliament to act as a watchdog, as it should? Those are the questions; may I have answers?


Royce Herbert Frith: Mr. Speaker, may I just outline at the beginning the hon. member's concerns because I understand he was a member of the task force on regulatory reform. The minister wants to point out that on January 9, which was only two and a half weeks after the report of the committee was tabled, he wrote to his cabinet colleagues identifying a number of specific initiatives in the regulatory field which he suggested be the government's focus for reform during the next 18 months. His role is going to be co-ordinator for the government in order to encourage ministers and their officials to consider regulatory change and to support them in their efforts.
The first aspect of his work program, housecleaning of existing legislation and regulations, is an area in which the minister hopes rapid progress can be made. The first intent is to eliminate unused and ineffective legislation. A bill is now being prepared to repeal obsolete federal legislation, a bill the minister expects to be able to introduce in the near future. He
further urges his colleagues to review and to put forward proposals for legislative rationalization.
The second and very important aspect of our work program, improving the process of regulation, is developed in our work program by a number of specific projects, including looking at the feasibility of an advance notice system, such as a regulatory agenda, applying the principles underlying the SEIA program whenever new regulations are being proposed, finding ways in which federal departments and agencies can improve their evaluation of regulatory programs within the present program evaluation procedures, etc. The consensus process and self-regulation as alternatives to regulation, placing greater emphasis on service to the public and on the relationships between government and its clientele, and implementing proposals already approved by cabinet and designed to reduce the paper burden imposed by federal requirements for records retention are also included.
The special committee placed considerable emphasis on the role of Parliament in the regulatory process. As my colleague, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), indicated in the House earlier this month, parliamentary reform is viewed by the government as a very important matter, and work on proposals that might be placed before members is now under way. The advice and suggestions of the special committee are being examined very closely, and I expect as well that every member of Parliament will want at some time to review the ideas presented.
With respect to the third aspect of our work program, selective deregulation, the government will be aided by the final recommendations of the Economic Council of Canada's report, now expected in late spring. Pending receipt of the council's recommendations, I believe there is much that can be done to improve the regulatory process.
In conclusion, I believe the government has moved with great rapidity to follow up on the special advice of the committee on regulatory reform. I hope I can look forward to continuing support from both sides of this House in the implementation of these initiatives. Thank you.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-INVESTMENT IN FOREIGN SHIPPING GROUP
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, on January 15, 1981, I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) to explain the involvement of the Canadian National Railways with the CAST shipping group. In 1980 the minister revealed that the CNR, with the approval and concurrence of the Government of Canada, invested $50 million in the CAST group.
CAST operates a north Atlantic container fleet and a container terminal at the port of Montreal. These Canadian public funds will be used by CAST to assist in financing the construction of six new container ships, to expand the Canadian container terminal in Montreal and to acquire equipment and services related to the transporting of containerized cargo. According to the Montreal Gazette the CAST group, with the
January 27, 1981

assistance of the CNR, will double its vessel capacity and its terminal facilities at the port of Montreal.
My general concern is that CNR's involvement with the CAST shipping group may well have an adverse effect on Atlantic ports, particularly the ports of Halifax and Saint John, and yet contribute very little to the Canadian economy or to marine transportation in Canada.
Let me point out some special concerns which may arise from CNR's direct involvement in CAST operations in the port of Montreal. First of all, let us consider the ownership of CAST. CAST is operated by Euro-Canadian Shipholdings Limited of Bermuda. Sixty-one per cent of the shares of that company are held by Dolphin Investments Limited, and that company is under the effective control of Frank Narby, a Canadian residing in Europe. Only 18 per cent of the shares of Euro-Canadian Shipholdings Limited are owned by CNR, leaving the operation of CAST in the hands of foreign persons.
The construction of the six container ships involved in the expansion program will take place in Yugoslavia and South Korea at an expenditure of approximately $180 million, so that this expenditure will not result in any jobs for Canadians or any real advantage to the Canadian economy.
An additional point is that the doubling of the container traffic on the North American routes is not anticipated over the next three or four years of CAST's expansion, so that in order to live up to its new capacity, CAST will have to rob traffic from other container carriers, in particular the container carriers which serve the ports of Halifax and Saint John and go on to serve other ports on the Atlantic coast.
My major concern is the welfare of the port of Halifax. Marine transportation is a viable and important industry in the province of Nova Scotia, providing millions of dollars in supplies and services and providing employment for a large number of persons. It is said that in the Halifax area one out of seven jobs can be attributed to marine transportation and to the operation of the port of Halifax. The port of Halifax, in terms of its magnitude of operation, handled in 1979, 2.1 million tonnes of cargo, and this would involve, in terms of container traffic, approximately 200,000 containers. Container traffic was down 7 per cent in 1980, although the port manager hopes it will increase in 1981.
In addition to container cargo, the port of Halifax handles a large amount of general cargo. The auto port operates a very effective and efficient system for transporting automobiles. In 1980 it handled approximately 79,000 vehicles. The port of Montreal in the last completed year, 1980, experienced an I 1 per cent increase in container traffic. That would lead one to conclude that perhaps the port of Montreal is getting some special advantages in the container field.
What we want on the east coast and what we want for the port of Halifax is fair treatment from the government departments and agencies involved in marine transportation. We have in Halifax a new container facility coming on stream in
1982.	That is the Fairview Cove container pier, and we look
Adjournment Debate
forward to a substantial increase in the container traffic in order to utilize the facilities which will be available at that pier. That kind of expansion cannot take place if we do not get fair treatment from the Canadian National Railways, which is the major source and recourse for land traffic from the container pier facility now in place in the port of Halifax and which will be the land transportation source for the new Fairview Cove container pier.
We believe the CNR has taken a dangerous step in its direct involvement with the CAST operation, and we believe that such a step should not be taken without a full and public inquiry and review being carried out on the relationship of CNR and international marine transportation corporations. There is a great danger that conflict of interest will occur and that CNR might be inclined to favour operators such as CAST over operators who have served ports like Halifax and Saint John.
In addition, there is the danger that difficulties will develop with the good relations which now exist between the east coast Canadian ports and the ports on the east coast of the United States.
Other factors could be mentioned, particularly the benefits received by the port of Montreal through the Government of Canada in relation to ice-breaking activities, which amount to millions and millions of dollars annually. So, we must be very careful in dealing and tampering with the subtle fabric of our marine transportation system.
It is my concern and interest to bring to the attention of the House the particular involvement of the CNR with the CAST shipping group and to inquire of the minister how he explains this involvement. 1 ask for his assurance that it will not have an adverse effect upon the port of Halifax and other east coast ports.


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for his interest in and commitment to the port of Halifax, but the question he posed to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) really deals with the rationale behind CAST's plans for expansion and CN's involvement in this venture. It does not concern the development of the harbour of Montreal or the harbour of Halifax.
According to Mr. Frank Narby, the head of the CAST group, CAST expects the competition for container traffic on the north Atlantic to be greatly intensified in the coming years. By using bigger ships burning low-grade bunker oil and offering door-to-door service at attractive prices, CAST expects to meet the competition and increase its share of the market. CAST's unique service, combined with its experienced mangagement, puts it in a very strong competitive position.

Mr. Speaker, CAST intends to expand its container transport operations by increasing exports of U.S. coal, and as was mentioned by the hon. member, not six but eight freighters for

January 27, 1981
Adjournment Debate
bulk products transportation have been bought for that purpose, and the Quebec City harbour will become a transfer port for this coal.

CN's participation in the CAST group in the past has provided a healthy return on its investment. It has also given CN a considerable share of Canada's container traffic-I suppose Halifax has benefited from it-and is helping CN to develop into a dynamic and fully integrated transportation company. Its recent investments are fully expected to reinforce this position.
[ Translation]
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the CAST expansion project will also mean direct and indirect benefits for the port of Montreal. The hon. member seems to be complaining, but when it suits the port of Halifax, of course it does not suit the port of Montreal and vice versa. In this instance this can help the port of Montreal harbour, and a study by the National Harbours Commission has estimated the impact to be some $56.6 million. The first tangible result, of course, will be the lease of 22 acres of land in the eastern part of the port of Montreal.

So, if CN through its investment in CAST is contributing to shipbuilding employment in some other countries, it is also clearly creating job opportunities in Canada.
The government is concerned about this problem. It has requested CN to report back every six months on the status of its involvement so as to keep the matter under continuous review.


WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION-CANADIAN POSITION ON INFANT FORMULA FOR THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, recently I asked a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) concerning Canada's preference for mere recommendations as opposed to regulations in its work at the World Health Organization on an international code of marketing of breast milk substitutes.
My concern was, and is, that Canada is abandoning whatever pretence it has to friendship with the peoples of developing countries and is becoming a mouthpiece for the interests and the ethos of multinational food corporations. The minister's assurances in the House that she is as concerned about Third World children as she is about Canadian children and that the government is as committed to fighting poverty overseas as it is here in Canada would be humorous, if they were not also frightening. I say this considering the lethargy which the minister has displayed in doing anything other than posturing about the recommendations of the Commission on the Year of the Child here in Canada.
Her answer subsequently to me in a letter takes the tack of claiming that the federal government must argue for recommendations only because to argue for regulations would impinge on provincial jurisdiction. This is a complete abdication of Canada's international responsibilities as a nation. It is a shameful cop-out.
Babies the world over are dying; this is the reality of the matter. They are dying because of the misplaced trust which our civilization puts in technological means over and above the natural way which is available to mothers, regardless of their economic status and regardless of their water supply, and is also because of the further corruption of this over-emphasis on professional care by the global profit-seeking of multinational corporations.
Other industrialized countries such as Sweden and Switzerland have been willing to support a strong code. Why not Canada? Is it because we, too, have Third World conditions in our own backyard which give rise to exploitation? If so, we would therefore have to stand up to the multinationals here, as well as in Burma or Nigeria, were we to adopt a strict code. No doubt this is part of it. That leads me to the unhappy conclusion that contrary to the minister's usual self-righteous effusions, we do not have just a case of callousness here but also a case of cowardice.
When I first asked this question, I did so because at the time the World Health Assembly executive was meeting in Geneva to formulate policy recommendations to be made to the meeting of the 34th assembly of the World Health Organization in May of 1981. In the House, and in a subsequent letter, the minister claimed, and rightly so-at least in terms of chronology-that she could not tell me exactly what the latest developments were with regard to Canada's position. She could not tell me whether or not it was, in fact, to be changed from supporting recommendations to supporting regulations.
Given that the meeting in Geneva ends tomorrow and that therefore, presumably, this matter has been discussed in Geneva, I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Frith) in addition to the prepared statement he no doubt has ready to read to us might also be able to comment on whether or not the lamentable position of Canada in this regard has been changed and whether or not, as a result of representations made to the government, the health department took a different stand in Geneva and Canadians might now have cause to feel that once again they are on the side of mothers and children in the Third World and not on the side of corporations like Nestle.


Royce Herbert Frith: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I should begin my response to the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) by pointing out to him that the government is far from being a defender of large multinationals. Contrary to the way he feels that the minister has answered his question previously in the House, in my view the minister has consistently stated that her viewpoint and that of the department is that breast feeding is the superior method, if you will, of feeding children. Her position has never been one
January 27, 1981

of defending the widespread use of infant formulation in the Third World.
Notwithstanding that, it is a fact of life that infant formulas have become a way of life in too many Third World countries. Indeed, as the hon. member points out, it has created some problems. From the standpoint of the children's health particularly, largely because of the need for a source of potable water to mix with the infant formula, a number of children become quite sick. I expect there could probably be a good case made that many babies have died as a result of the use of infant formulas in the Third World.
The World Health Organization executive board is meeting this week in Geneva, and it hopes to make a recommendation or a regulation with respect to a code which will be applied to the use of different formulations in the Third World. If a decision is reached, then the matter should be ratified by the World Health Assembly some time in 1981.
The way in which United Nations organizations such as the World Health Organization establish their groups and go about their discussions, one might argue that it should be a registered art form. It is quite clear to me that the Canadian delegation has been consistent in its attempts to come up with a recommendation which will be adopted by the widest
Adjournment Debate
number of countries in the world. This is the position taken by the government, that it take the form of a recommendation which carries significant moral and political weight and which constitutes the judgment of the collective membership of the organization.
What is being contemplated is a draft recommendation in very precise terms so as to avoid controversy at the time of implementation, thereby allowing it to be put into effect immediately in the greatest number of countries possible. I believe that this is a goal which is shared by both sides of this House. This recommendation will be consistent with the promotion of the health of all children and will be acceptable to the governments of the provinces, the people of Canada and the Government of Canada.
That in a nutshell is the position taken by the Canadian government at Geneva this week. I thope it will lead to the implementation of a code which will decrease the number of deaths which occur as the result of the use of infant formulations in the Third World.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 10.28 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, January 28, 1981