1970-10-05

Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, since I am the first one to take the floor since the adjournment, I take this opportunity to offer you my best wishes for a good session, even though there have been some changes in the cabinet and the opposition has re-organized itself.
tEnglish]
I rise on a question of privilege affecting all members of the House of Commons as the representatives of the people. Since July 15 the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Morison), chairman of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Regional Development, has been employed by the Department of Community and Social Development of the province of Newfoundland.
I do not quarrel with the hon. member having been hired by a provincial government, but his employment in this case appears to be in conflict with the House of Commons Act as it relates to Members of Parliament. I do question, however, the impartiality of the hon. member and his continuing as chairman of the Standing Committee on Regional Development. This committee reviews the estimates of the department and is responsible for voting government moneys to carry out its regional development programs all across Canada, including the federal-provincial Newfoundland plan.
According to reports, the hon. member was working for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion liaison committee of federal-provincial officials and was employed as a consultant working with the committee to initiate the Newfoundland projects. Although I have much respect for the chairman of the committee, as a member for Nova Scotia may I point out that that province signed an agreement with Ottawa and is on the verge of signing a new agreement affecting a greater
part of the province; consequently I feel that the Newfoundland plan is much more liable to receive attention than others, and I sense a direct conflict of interest.
In conclusion, if the chairman of the Standing Committee on Regional Development does not resign as chairman immediately, I shall move a motion, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), that this matter be studied by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


Mr. J. B. Morison (Halton-Wentworih):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to reply to the question of privilege that has just been raised. I will pass over the first part of the question of privilege in that my seat in the House does not appear to be in question.
Before going to Newfoundland I checked with the Department of Justice and also checked with the House whether or not I was contravening the Act. The advice I received was that a precedent had been set before in connection with working for a provincial government and that I was not contravening the Act.
As to my impartiality as chairman of the committee, I should like to say to you, sir, that when I first came to this House I was amazed at the facility that you displayed here. That amazement became almost hero worship as the years went by. I thought this facility was partly due to your wit or personality, but as I watched you I realized that a great deal of your facility was based on knowledge.
I have been chairman of the Standing Committee on Regional Development for a couple of years. Over that period of time I would say that, apart from the time taken by one member from the east and one member from the west, most of the time spent on the work of the committee has been taken up by members from Newfoundland. I felt that if I were really going to do a job as chairman of that committee I should make myself aware of the situation in Newfoundland.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John B. Morison: The best way to do this, of course, was to get some first-hand information. If opposition members think I am
October 5, 1970

Tribute to the Late George Muir making light of this matter, may I point out to them that one of the members from Newfoundland tried to encourage my committee to come to Newfoundland in May or June with the promise that we would go tuna fishing. I believed him, Mr. Speaker, until I realized that the tuna do not come in until July.
Be that as it may, I believe within my heart that I am now a better chairman of the regional development committee. The decision whether I am going to be chairman during the next session of the House depends on the committee. Since to all intents and purposes my work on the committee is now finished, I am perfectly prepared to stand for re-election when the committee is convened again. It was opposition members who asked me to be chairman, and if the members of the committee ask me to be chairman again, I will be proud to accept the offer of the opposition. Otherwise I shall take my seat as an ordinary member of the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear! hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The matter raised by the hon. member for South Western Nova is one of interest not only to the hon. member who raised the question and to the hon. member who has just spoken but to the whole House. In view of the fact that there is such a lengthy program of business ahead of us today, perhaps hon. members will allow the Chair to give the situation some thought and to study the precedents before a ruling is handed down. The matter will be taken under very serious consideration during the next day or so.



VACANCY

Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty to inform the House that I have received a communication notifying me that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely:
Mr. George Muir, member for the electoral district of Lisgar, by decease.
Accordingly I have addressed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a new writ of election for the said electoral district.



THE LATE GEORGE MUIR

Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, we were saddened by the news during the recess of the death of our colleague and friend, George Muir, member for
[Mr. Morlson.l

Lisgar. Born and raised in Manitoba, he was an accomplished farmer, a man who understood both the hardships and the satisfactions associated with that way of life.
He was first elected to this House in 1957 and served continuously until his death a little more than a month ago. We remember him as a man of warmth and kind humour, and we share our sense of loss with that of his family and those Canadians he represented in Parliament.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in paying tribute to the late George Muir. Probably those among whom one lives are in the best position to judge a person. When one applies this test to George Muir there can be no question about the love and affection with which he was regarded by his constituents and the people among whom he lived. He was a quiet-spoken man, a reasonable man, but also a man of strong convictions and a very high sense of public duty. He had a thorough knowledge of agricultural problems, particularly with regard to the West. We in my party, and I am sure the House as a whole, will greatly miss his counsel and advice.
On behalf of my colleagues and myself I join with the Prime Minister in extending our deepest sympathy to Mrs. Muir and the members of the family.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the members of this party want to concur in the expressions of appreciation and the tributes that have been paid to the late hon. member for Lisgar.
George Muir sat close to this group and consequently we had an opportunity to get to know him very well. We had a great appreciation of his kindliness, his good humour and his thorough knowledge of agricultural problems and the people he represented in the House. All of us were surprised and saddened at the news of his death. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you will be expressing the view of members in all parts of this chamber in conveying to his family and his constituents the deep sense of loss that we feel at his untimely death.


Mr. Real Caoueite (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my group I join with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and with
October 5, 1970

the Leader of the Official Opposition to extend to the family of George Muir our deep sympathy.
Mr. Muir was highly considered in the House of Commons and the electors of the Lisgar constituency have surely lost one of the most active members in the House.
Our most sincere sympathy goes to his family.



VACANCY

Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the House that I have received notice that a vacancy has occurred in the representation due to the resignation of the member for Labelle, Hon. Leo Cadieux, who has accepted an office of emolument under the Crown.
I accordingly issued my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer to make out a new writ of election for the said electoral district.



RESIGNATIONS OF DEPUTY SPEAKER AND DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES OF THE WHOLE

Mr. Speaker:: With regret I have to inform the House that the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Faulkner) has submitted his resignation as Deputy Speaker of the House and also that the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Bechard) has tendered his resignation as Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole House.
During his term of office the hon. member for Peterborough had acquired an excellent knowledge and understanding of the rules.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: His interpretation of the Standing Orders and precedents has always been marked by fairness and good judgment and tempered with understanding and good humour. I am sure I express the views of all hon. members when I say that as Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees of the Whole he has enjoyed the well deserved confidence of his colleagues. I am personally grateful to him for his wise counsel and sympathetic support at all times and in all circumstances. On behalf of the House I wish him well in the discharge of his new responsibilities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
House oj Commons


Mr. Speaker:: I also received with regret notice of the resignation of the hon. member for Bonaventure.
Like the Deputy Speaker, the Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole House demonstrated unfailing impartiality and fairness, thus earning the confidence of his colleagues and of the House.
Speaking for the House, I express our gratitude to the hon. members for Bonaventure and Peterborough for the services rendered to us, and wish them Godspeed in the discharge of their new responsibilities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)



APPOINTMENT OF DEPUTY SPEAKER AND CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES OF THE WHOLE

Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That Mr. Russell C. Honey, member for the electoral district of Northumberland-Durham, be appointed Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees of the Whole House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by Mr. MacEachen, that Mr. Gerald Laniel, member for the electoral district of Beauharnois, be appointed Deputy chairman of Committees of the Whole House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a Message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Canada Corporations Act and other statutory provisions related to the subject matter of certain of those amendments, with amendments, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.

October 5, 1970
Ministry Appointments



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration-Mr. Weatherhead.

The Deputy Chairman:: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the chairman of the Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, I have the honour to submit, both in French and in English, the 11th report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.


[Stage Direction]
Fourteenth report of Standing Committee on Transport and Communications-Mr. Turner (London East).
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the House that by Order in Council PC 1970-1717 of October 2, 1970, writs have been issued today for by-elections to be held on Monday, November 16th, 1970, in the federal electoral districts of Lisgar, Manitoba, Frontenac, Quebec, and Labelle, Quebec.



THE MINISTRY


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as is customary I should like to inform the House of certain changes in the ministry since the House recessed on June 26, 1970.

The Hon. Leo Cadieux resigned as Minister of National Defence to take up the duties of Canadian ambassador to France. (Mr. Speaker.]
Since he was elected in 1962, Mr. Cadieux has represented the electoral district of Labelle. During his term as minister, his impeccable courteousness and his sense of humour made him popular, which is rarely the case amongst the ministers of a department that raises so much interest and provokes as many questions as that of the National Defence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the members' reaction would indicate that his agreeable presence will be missed by all those in this House.

A reallocation of responsibilities of five members of the cabinet was made, effective September 24, 1970: the Hon. Allan Mac-Eachen, President of the Privy Council and Government House Leader, the Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote, Minister without Portfolio responsible for the Post Office, the Hon. Donald Macdonald, Minister of National Defence-


An hon. Member:: This means war.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -the Hon. Otto Lang, Minister of Manpower and Immigration, with continued responsibility for the Wheat Board-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He is looking after me-the Hon. Herb Gray, Minister of National Revenue, with continued responsibility for advising the government on questions relating to foreign ownership. Also, on October 1, 1970, 14 new Parliamentary Secretaries were appointed.
I wish to table the letter of resignation from the Hon. Leo Cadieux and my reply thereto.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may say a word in response to the official notification given by the Prime Minister. I should like to congratulate the new Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald). I notice that the other day he said something to the effect that the troops were well prepared. I can only hope that they are well prepared for him, sir.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I wish to congratulate the new President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), my colleague from Nova Scotia
October 5, 1970

and prospective House Leader. We look forward, of course, to continuing our usual amiable relationship.
With regard to the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Cote) who now has the responsibility of salvaging the operations of the Post Office, I must say something about this apparent sacrifice on his part, namely, that it seems a little mysterious. But perhaps, like some other mysteries, it will be cleared up in due course.
As to the new Parliamentary Secretaries, of course I congratulate them and extend my deepest sympathy to the former Parliamentary Secretaries as well as to their wives and families.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said he was going to make an announcement regarding changes in the cabinet. I think that most members will consider this to be a very gentle shuffle rather than a change. But it does provide an opportunity to pay tribute to one minister who is no longer here, namely, the former Minister of National Defence, Mr. Cadieux, and to say that we all agree with the Prime Minister that he was popular in all parts of the House and that with him go our best wishes for his success in the diplomatic field.
I will not deal with each of the ministers who has been moved around except to say to the Prime Minister, particularly for those who are concerned about the agricultural situation on the Prairies, that it seems to me that the Wheat Board has been passed from hand to hand over the years. First it was with the Department of Trade and Commerce, then with the Department of Agriculture, then went back to the Department of Trade and Commerce, then was under a Minister without Portfolio, and now it will be under the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang). What the relationship is between these two responsibilities is difficult for one to conjure, but it seems to me that responsibility for the Wheat Board could very easily have been given to one minister in view of the very serious situation in the grain marketing business in Canada at the present time. I still hope that the Prime Minister will give some thought to seeing that a full-time minister devotes his attention to this very difficult task.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Would you like me to name yet another minister?
Ministry Appointments


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If the Prime Minister wishes to consult me at any time with regard to a possible nominee I certainly will be glad to assist him. I might even be able to suggest someone who knows something about the marketing of grain.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I say to the Prime Minister that after his changes I am reminded of the famous words of Pythagoras, the Greek philosopher, who said that the more things change the more they are the same.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt whatsoever that the best notice given by the right honourable prime minister (Mr. Trudeau) today is that of the three by-elections on November 16.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: Also, on behalf of my colleagues and on my own, I wish to congratulate the new portfolio incumbents, as well as the new parliamentary secretaries. I thought that the Finance Minister (Mr. Benson) whould be replaced, but he has been kept to cope with the national problems.
Mr. Speaker, the newly-appointed parliamentary secretaries, according to some newspaper comments, are an injection of new blood. I note, among them, people who are set on serving the public well and that is why I congratulate them.
Finally, we are happy to hear that the former Minister of National Defence, hon. Leo Cadieux, has been appointed Canadian ambassador to France. Everybody called him Leo. We never called him Mr. Minister. He was everybody's friend. In my opinion, all hon. members were pleased by the news of his appointment. We wish him a long stay there and we are sure that he will be a worthy representative of Canada, his country and ours.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

October 5, 1970
Business of the House



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the relatively recent shift in responsibilities it has been agreed between my colleague, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEa-chen) and myself that for the balance of the current session and for the opening proceedings of the next session I will continue to act as House Leader in order to wind up this session and start the next.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I thank hon. members for their expressions of concurrence in this arrangement. In view of the fact that I will be moving to defence shortly I will try not to be too offensive in this role at the present time.
First I would like to confirm the timetable for the balance of this session, something which has been discussed with the representatives of the various parties. It would be the government's intention to seek prorogation of the present session on Wednesday afternoon toward the close of that day's sitting.
The Speech from the Throne commencing the third	session	would be	on Thursdaymorning, and the motion to move and second the Address in Reply would be put on Thursday afternoon. Discussions along these lines have been held with representatives of the various parties. I believe it has been generally agreed that leaders' day would take place on Friday next, and if it were found necessary the House	would	concur in	a motion	toextend the	time of	the sitting	on Friday	sothat the leaders of	all parties	would not	be
cramped for time. As Monday next is the Thanksgiving holiday, the general debate on the Speech from the Throne would begin on Tuesday of next week.
With respect to this week's business, for today the first item to be called under government orders would be government order No. 68, the report stage of the shipping conference exemptions bill, to be followed by the bill from the Senate with regard to the incorporation of the Hudson's Bay Company. When we reach that stage of our proceedings I would suggest and make a motion to the House that the bill be considered in committee of the whole rather than be referred to an appropriate standing committee. That is government order No. 108.

The third item today would be government order No. 82, the Canada Grains Act. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that there has been some doubt expressed in some quarters as to the propriety of hon. members placing amendments at this time, particularly in view of the fact that this bill was reported just on the last day before the House adjourned for the summer recess. On behalf of the government I would be prepared to put forward a motion of a procedural nature so that it would be possible for amendments to be moved today, in order that they could be considered today, if the House is prepared to agree to that.
Tomorrow we would propose to call the motion to concur in the Senate amendments to Bill C-4, the Canada Corporations Act, and as the second item of business the Canada Grains Act. On Wednesday we would again call the Canada Grains Act if it were still under debate and, as I indicated, later in the afternoon we would seek prorogation of the session, bringing the second session of this Parliament to an end.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I would be graciously pleased to endure the continued existence of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) as Government House Leader until the end of this session, and would even be happy to accept his suggestion that Bill S-25 be dealt with in all stages in the House. This is an admirable suggestion, and we would be glad to co-operate.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: We agree, Mr. Speaker. We even agree to suffer the minister for two more days.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, the Ralliement creditiste agrees with the proposals of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) inasmuch as they apply to the current session and to the beginning of the next one. We regret one thing. Parliament will be prorogued after over three months of holidays for hon. members who could easily have done a lot of work during summer and properly prepared themselves for resuming their business in the House.


Mr. Horner:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it has been my understanding that before debate commences on a given government item it must be on the Order Paper for 48 hours. To my knowledge it was impossible
October 5. 1970

for government order 82 to be on the Order Paper for 48 hours because the Standing Committee on Agriculture only submitted its findings to the House on June 26, the last sitting day before the summer recess, and no Order Paper has been published since that day. Therefore I doubt whether, without unanimous consent of the House, we can deal with this item until it has been on the Order Paper for 48 hours.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, this was an objection I anticipated in saying that the government would seek the consent of the House to go ahead with the item today, particularly to go ahead with amendments that the hon. member or other hon. members may wish to put. It is the view of the government that it is desirable to deal with the measure as soon as possible subject, of course, to the right of the House to put amendments and to debate them. It is for that reason that we would seek the consent of the House, under these special circumstances, to deal with the matter. The bill and the amendments and the report back from the committee have been available for some time, and it seems to us reasonable that we should go ahead today.


Mr. Speaker:: My understanding is that a motion will be proposed by the minister seeking unanimous consent of the House, but in any event the 48-hour requirement would be met by tomorrow.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I regret to have to inform the House that Mr. James Richard Cross, Senior Trade Commissioner of the British Trade Commission in Montreal, was abducted from his home early this morning by armed men. The reasons for this act have not been conclusively established. Police were immediately informed and road blocks and spot checks on major arteries leading to and from the city, including bridges leading to the south shore, have been established. The Montreal Police, the Quebec Provincial Police and the RCMP are co-operating in investigating this case.
The Canadian government is consulting closely with the British authorities in this matter. It is fully aware of its responsibility for the protection of foreign representatives in this country and is sparing no effort to

Abduction of British Commissioner discharge this duty. All appropriate steps are being taken to ensure additional protection for diplomatic and consular persons and premises. We are in close touch with all provincial and municipal authorities concerned and there is no doubt as to their full co-operation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly shocked, as I am sure all Canadians are, by what happened this morning in Montreal. We have all known of similar instances in other lands but we had considered ourselves fortunate in not being directly involved and that our country was somewhat different in this respect. Now that we are involved we expect the government of Canada to face up squarely to an admittedly delicate and difficult situation. On behalf of the Canadian people we expect that the government of Canada will do everything possible. We will hold it to a very high standard of effort with regard to this situation and we will expact the government to take the House into its confidence with regard to any decision that it makes as it goes along.
I should like to express my deep regret and sorrow to Mrs. Cross on behalf of my colleagues. We also send our regrets to the British government that this incident has taken place in Canada.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all members of the House and all Canadian citizens will be disturbed by this abduction of Mr. Cross, a British diplomatic official. We have been shocked by the abductions which have taken place in some other countries, with people being held for various kinds of ransom, usually a form of blackmail for the release of prisoners who have been found guilty of sabotage or some other act of violence. I do not think that any of us expected this to happen in Canada. I can only say that I am sure all Canadians expect the government to prosecute the search for the persons responsible as expeditiously as possible and to take all steps to see that such an incident is not repeated.
If the minister has any information as to what the terms for the release of Mr. Cross are, I hope he will be willing to make that information available to members of the House of Commons. It may be that the government will have to face a very serious decision in this matter, and I think both the House and the Canadian people would
October 5, 1970
8710	COMMONS
Prohibition of Interprovincial Marketing appreciate being taken into the full confidence of the government.
I am sure members in all parts of the House express their sincere sorrow and regrets both to the family of Mr. Cross and to the British government. We hope the government will be able to give some further information to the country as to what success has crowned its efforts.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, this morning's incident is most unfortunate. As a citizen of the province of Quebec, I am sorry this happened in Canada's metropolis where bombshells are not unusual, as we know.
Mr. Speaker, a distinction should now be made. The city of Montreal as a whole or all its inhabitants are not responsible for what happened. However, we must admit that a few twisted minds, a few hot-heads are enough for such an incident to happen. I deeply regret that this took place again in the province of Quebec, as it seems to me that most of the citizens of that province do not deserve what they are going through today because of some individuals.
I hope that the consul kidnapped this morning will be found by the police safe and sound and will not have been subjected to further assaults or insults because he has gone through enough already. I expect that those responsible for that kidnapping will be punished in an exemplary fashion in order to avoid repetition of such an incident in Quebec as well as in the rest of Canada. There is no need to resort to such means and to copy what happens in some other rebellious countries of the world. We have not reached that point yet. And I say again that it is distressing to see that there are such hot-heads in Quebec and especially in Montreal.



AGRICULTURE


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I intend to ask the House for unanimous consent to present a motion on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity. In accordance with the rule, I now explain the basis of the urgency which compels me to seek this leave. 

A most critical situation has developed since the House adjourned last June; it is caused by the unilateral action of several provinces to prohibit, through marketing legislation, the entry into such provinces of farm products from other provinces. Such action appears to be clearly unconstitutional, particularly under Section 121 of the British North America Act; however, a judgment of a provincial court has upheld the prototype of such provincial legislation. A final appeal of this judgment may take many months. Meanwhile, other provinces have indicated they will pass retaliatory laws. There is now a drastic interference with the economics of the agricultural industry which may spill over into the other primary industries and the manufacturing industry as well.
The Prime Minister, with respect to the agricultural crisis, indicated that the passage of Bill C-197 would by itself provide the solution, that there was n>o need for a constitutional reference to the Supreme Court of Canada to settle the matter once and for all. He was wrong on both counts. With the failure of the government to bring in an acceptable bill which would be passed by Parliament this session and accepted by the provinces, it is now absolutely essential that there be an immediate reference to the Supreme Court. I therefore ask the unanimous consent of the House to propose, seconded by the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth), the following motion:
That, in the opinion of this House, it is essential that the government of Canada, upon consultation with the provinces, frame terms of reference under section 55 of the Supreme Court Act to secure the opinion of the court as soon as possible on the important constitutional questions raised by action taken by certain provinces attempting to prohibit the entry into such provinces of agricultural products from other provinces.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: A delaying process.


Mr. Speaker:: As hon. members know, the motion proposed by the hon. member for Peace River requires the unanimous consent of the House and I must inquire now whether there is such unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there are dissenting voices, the motion cannot be put at this time.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not agree with delaying tactics so I said no.
October 5, 1970



FISHERIES


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I ask the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion in a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
This matter involves the management and conservation of our marine resources on both our Atlantic and Pacific coasts. The depletion of our marine resources by foreign nationals, especially by the Soviet Union, necessitates that Canada assume its responsibility under the articles of the law of the sea and initiate an international conference on fish conservation and management.
With the unanimous consent of the House I therefore would move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Carter), the following motion:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government take the initiative in convening an international conference of the fishing nations of the world to discuss the conservation and management of marine resources in the waters adjacent to the territorial seas of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Again, this is a motion which requires unanimous consent. I ask whether there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The hon. member's motion cannot be put at this time.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)

Mr. Crouse: 1.	What is the official status of Harold Huskilson of Lockeport and Shelburne, Nova Scotia, who recently announced federal government contracts in Nova Scotia?
2.	Does the government see fit to channel such information through him rather than through the Office of the Minister or the Information Division of the particular department and, if so, for what reasons?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1. The Department of Public Works has no knowledge of the official status of Harold Huskilson.
2. Not applicable.
Questions


OTTAWA-OFFICES FOR MINISTERS WITHOUT PORTFOLIO
Mr. Winch: 1.	Do the two most recent Ministers without Portfolio have offices located in departmental buildings and, if so, were renovations required and what were these renovations for each?
2.	What was the cost of the renovations in each case?


Arthur Laing: 1. Work was carried out in the National Building, 130 Slater Street, Ottawa, to accommodate the Hon. R. D. G. Stanbury. It included painting, partitioning, electrical and mechanical work, and the cutting of a new door. The Hon. H. E. Gray occupies an office in the Confederation Building, Wellington Street, Ottawa. Renovations carried out to this space consisted of painting and the installation of new electrical fixtures.
2. Cost of work in the National Building $2,500., Confederation Building $720.


PUBLIC WORKS-CONSTRUCTION OF FEDERAL BUILDING, ANDOVER, N.B.
Mr. Coaies: 1.	On what date was the federal building constructed at the border crossing between Andover, N.B., and Port Fairfield, Maine, that is presently not in use and what was its cost of construction?
2.	Has the building in question ever been used by the federal government and, if so, for what periods of time since its construction?
3.	What was the purpose for construction of the building and why has it remained unused for substantial periods of time?
4.	Have steps ever been taken by the federal government to dispose of the building or have any representations ever been received by the federal government as to its disposal and, if so, what were the recommendations in question?
5.	What are the present considerations by the federal government regarding this building?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliameniary Secretary lo Presideni of ihe Privy Council):: I am informed by the Department of Public Works and National Revenue as follows: 1. A contract for the building was awarded in November 1952 and it was completed in September 1954. The cost of construction was $218,181.60.
2.	This building has been used infrequently for Customs purposes since its construction.
3.	At the time of construction, reports indicated that the State of Maine proposed constructing a new highway across the northern part of Maine connecting the Provinces of Quebec and New Brunswick at Andover. The Department of National Revenue felt that the new highway would attract a considerable amount of truck traffic through Andover and it was in anticipation of meeting these de-

October 5. 1970
Questions
mands that the new building was constructed. The new highway never materialized and the building has seen 'little use since erected.
4.	and 5. After the Department of National Revenue reported in 1967 that they had no longer a requirement for the building, several unsuccessful attempts were made to find alternate federal uses for it. Disposal action was begun in May 1969, but was delayed due to technical difficulties in obtaining survey documents. Actual disposal action is now well advanced and the necessary documents are being transmitted to the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation.


ADVERTISING AGENCY EMPLOYED BY UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys): 1.	What is the name and address of the advertising agency responsible for the recent advertisements of the department warning about fraudulent claims against the Unemployment Insurance Fund and what was the fee for this service?
2.	How many newspapers carry these advertisements?
3.	What has been the cost to date for same? Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minisler of Labour):
1.	Goodis, Goldberg, Soren Limited of Don Mills, Ontario.
(In Thousands of Dollars)	O and M
Fiscal	Capital
Year	and Grants
1950-51	14,241
1951-52	13,717
1952-53	14,812
1953-54	16,143
1954-55	17,637
1955-56	21,115
1956-57	23,330
1957-58	27,458
1958-59	35,974
1959-60	40,664
1960-61	45,980
1961-62	49,950
1962-63	50,535
1963-64	55,112
1964-65	64,250
1965-66	81,119
1966-67	104,132
1967-68	121,957
1968-69	141,854
1969-70	172,762
2.	Thirty-eight dailies, 470 weeklies and 12 other newspapers across Canada.
3.	$207,882.76.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND CONTRIBUTIONS, QUEBEC
Mr. Caouefle: For each of the past three years, how much was contributed by the employers and the employees of the Province of Quebec to the Unemployment Insurance Fund?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: The Unemployment Insurance Commission advises that the contributions paid by employers and employees are kept on the national basis only. They are not identified by region and there is no regional data on this matter.


YEARLY COST OF ASSISTANCE TO INDIANS, 1950 TO 1969
Mr. Robinson: What was the total cost of support given to Indians during each year 1950 to 1969 inclusive?
Mr. Judd Buchanan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minisler of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development):	
Indian	
Annuities	
(Statutory)	Total
323	14,564
337	14,054
369	15,181
360	16,503
386	18,023
368	21,483
404	23,734
393	27,851
416	36,390
452	41,116
447	46,427
461	50,411
466	51,001
484	55,596
514	64,764
563	81,682
514	104,646
552	122,509
624	142,478
585	173,347*
1,112,742	9,018	1,121,760
* Note: Expenditures for 1969-70 are estimated 
October 5, 1970

Questions


YEARLY COST OF ASSISTANCE TO ESKIMOS, 1950 TO 1969
Mr. Robinson: What was the total cost of support given to Eskimos during each year 1950 to 1969 inclusive?


Mr. Judd Buchanan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: The departmental records do not provide the specific data requested and the information in the following is the best estimate of the expenditure involved.
1962-63	19,413,500
1963-64	19,598,900
1964-65	20,700,900
1965-66	25,282,300
1966-67	26,861,100
1967-68	35,980,500
1968-69	41,270,300
1969-70	43,192,000


RESEARCH STUDIES, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Robinson: Fiscal year	Amount
1950-51	$ 1,494,600
1951-52	1,207,000
1952-53	1,029,400
1953-54	1,231,300
1954-55	1,480,800
1955-56	2,602,400
1956-57	6,015,000
1957-58	10,791,000
1958-59	14,499,400
1959-60	16,970,500
1960-61	16,384,000
1961-62	18,206,000
1 and 3. A review of	various studies
he following could be	considered as of
Year	Expenditure
1960-61	$ 51,500.
1961-62	25,000.
1965-66	5,000.
1966-67	6,000.
1967-68	5,000.
1968-69	12,000.
1969-70	10,000.
1969-70	8,000.
2 and 4. 1970-71	4,000.
1.	What research studies have been carried out, or on ebhalf of, the Department of Public Works during each year 1960 to 1969 inclusive?
2.	What research studies are presently being carried on and/or are contemplated during the next five years?
3.	What was the cost of each of the research studies completed in each year 1960 to 1969 inclusive?
4.	What is the estimated cost of each of the studies presently in being or contemplated during the next five years?


Arthur Laing: Description
Investigation of Littoral Drift and Harbour Siltation
Study of Ships Waves and their Erosive
Effects on Banks of Waterways
Study of Floating Breakwaters
Study of Strength Mechanisms of Sensitive
Clays
Study of Stability Characteristics of Breakwater Armour Units.
Study of Stability Characteristics of Breakwater Armour Units.
Specific research studies which may be carried out during the next five years have not been identified in cost or name at this time. It is expected, however, that expenditures on the type of research study previously carried out by the Department will continue at approximately the same level during the next five years.


CONSULTANTS ENGAGED, DEPARTMENT OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Robinson: How many consultants have been engaged by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development during each of the years 1950 to 1970 inclusive (a) what was the cost of the consultants (b) how were the consultants utilized (c) for what reasons were the consultants necessary?


J. Judd Buchanan: For the period 19501962: The information is not retrievable from existing records. For the period 1963-1969: Returns tabled, in response to 
question No. 1325-Mr. Skoberg, on June 25, 1969. For the period 1969-70: Number of Consultants engaged by the department, 154. (a) $1,068,580.

October 5. 1970
Questions
(b) To provide specialized professional studies and recommendations in the field of economics, sociology, education, engineering and architecture, forestry, archaeology, hydrology, statistics and management, (c) To provide independent reports, specialized expertise not available within the Department on projects not requiring full-time personnel, and additional assistance, where shortages of qualified staff would have caused unacceptable delays in the programs.


CONSULTANTS EMPLOYED BY TREASURY BOARD
Mr. Robinson: How many consultants have been engaged by Treasury Board during each year 1950 to 1970 inclusive (a) what was the cost of the consultants (b) how were the consultants utilized (c) for what reasons were the consultants necessary?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: The Treasury Board Secretariat separated from the Department of Finance on October 3, 1966 and became a separate department of government. The numbers, names, costs and utilization of consultants employed by the Treasury Board since becoming a department until the fiscal year 1969-70 are shown in the answers to Questions 1,323 and 2,452 of the last session, tabled on June 25, 1969 and October 22, 1969 respectively. In so far as the fiscal year 1969-70 is concerned, one consultant only has been engaged by the Treasury Board at a cost of $7,100. The consultants were necessary to supplement and complement the resources and expertise available within the Treasury Board Secretariat.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION-PART-TIME EMPLOYEES
Mr. Lamberl (Bellechasse): Does the federal government have part-time employees in the rural constituencies for the purpose of helping workers fill out their requests for Unemployment Insurance benefits and, if so (a) what are the names and addresses of these persons in the constituencies of Lotbiniere and Bellechasse (b) what is their annual salary?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: (a) Yes. Mrs. L. Goulet, Armagh, County of Bellechasse; Mrs. G. Chabot, St-Damien, County of Bellechasse; Mrs. O. T. Lejeune, St-Magloire, County of Bellechasse; Mrs. J. Rouillard, St-Philemon, County of Bellechasse; Mrs. A. Bernard, St-Raphael, County of Bellechasse; Mr. L. Deshaies, Deschaillons,

County of Lotbiniere; Mr. P. Croteau, St-Agapit, County of Lotbiniere; Mrs. J. A. Roy, St-Flavien, County of Lotbiniere; Miss Y. Hardy, Ste-Croix, County of Lotbiniere. (b) The rate of remuneration is $1.50 for each application completed.


EXPORT OF ITEMS UNDER CLASS 600
Mr. Lewis: 1.	Are any of the items under export class 600 (aircraft, aircraft engines and parts, etc.) that were sold to Portugal, Angola, Mozambique or the Portuguese colonies in Africa in the years 1963 to 1969 inclusive, capable of being used in or intended to be used in military aircraft?
2.	In particular, were any parts for F-86K Sabre jets sold to any of these countries?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. Items shipped
under export class 600 to Portugal, Angola, Mozambique and Portuguese colonies are of a recognized commercial nomenclature. Any potential military use of these items would be limited by the commercial characteristics and age of the aircraft concerned. The Canadian government has not permitted the export to Portugal or the territories under Portuguese administration of any aircraft, aircraft engines, and parts, etc., which in the Canadian government's judgment would be used for military purposes in the Portuguese overseas territories.
2.	No.


LEGISLATION COVERING SERIAL NUMBERING OF BICYCLES
Mr. Southam: Is it the intention of the government to give consideration to the request of the Bicycle Guild Incorporated of Montreal, to pass legislation making it mandatory that all bicycles imported or manufactured in Canada be identified by having stamped clearly and distinctly on the bicycle frame the manufacturer's coded serial number?


James Alexander Jerome: Insofar as the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is concerned: No. Registration schemes for bicycles would seem to be more appropriately dealt with by provincial legislatures.
Insofar as the Department of Finance is concerned:	In the absence of legislation
requiring domestic manufacturers to serially number Canadian-made bicycles, the prohibition of unnumbered imported bicycles would appear to be contrary to Article III: 4 of the
October 5, 1970

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade which provides in part that The products of the territory of any contracting party imported into the territory of any other contracting party shall be accorded treatment no less favourable than that accorded to like products of national origin in respect of all laws, regulations and requirements affecting their internal sale, offering for sale, purchase, transportation, distribution or use.


LASER INVENTION
Mr. Broadbenl: 1.	Which companies have applied to Canadian Patents and Development Limited regarding a licence to use the new laser invention developed by Defence Research Board scientists at Val Cartier, Quebec?
2.	What criteria was used to choose the company or companies licensed for the laser invention?
3.	Which company was awarded the laser licence?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. Canadian Patents and Development Limited received requests for a licence on the laser invention developed at Defence Research Establishment, Val Cartier from the following companies: Com-pagnie de Physique Appliquee de Quebec Ltee, Quebec City; Eastern Geophysics Limited, Toronto; Devtek Limited, Toronto; Gen-Tec (1969) Incorporated, Quebec City; Glen-tech Instruments Limited, Toronto; Nash and Harrison Limited, Ottawa; United Aircraft of Canada Limited, Longueuil; Union Carbide of Canada Limited, Toronto; Aviation Electric Limited, Montreal; Lumonix Limited, Ottawa; Orenda Limited, Toronto; Hun tec Limited, Toronto.
2.	All companies that expressed interest in seeking a licence were provided wtih the attached statement of criteria (Annex 'A') for selecting licensees, and this criteria was used in making the selections.
3.	Canadian Patents and Development Limited has agreed to license two companies: Lumonix Limited, 231 Grandview Road, RR. 2, Bell's Corners, Ontario, and Gen-Tec (1969) Incorporated, 2625 rue Dalton, Quebec 12, P.Q.
Selecting Licensees for the Development, Production and Marketing of Tea Lasers.
In licensing the patents on the TEA lasers Canadian Patents and Development Limited will seek to derive the maximum economic advantage for the people of Canada. Licensees will be required to carry out development
Questions
work in Canada, to guarantee adequate expenditures on development within stated periods to ensure active development and to manufacture in Canada for world markets.
In choosing licensees CPDL will consider the following: The applicant's plans for exploiting the laser, and particularly his plan for long term growth. The applicant's ability to have the necessary development work performed. The applicant's access to appropriate scientific and technical competence. The applicant's financial and managerial resources. The applicant's experience in and facilities for manufacturing. The applicant's experience in and facilities for marketing on a world-wide basis, and his freedom of access to world markets. The extent to which the applicant is "controlled in Canada" as defined in Section 139A of the Income Tax Act. Applicant's present involvement in laser technology and his production of complementary or competing products.


RESOLUTION TO AMEND BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT
Mr. Carter: Did the government receive a resolution from the Newfoundland Legislature to amend the British North America Act, more specifically, to amend Term 17 of the Terms of Union and, if so, on what date?


Mr. Barney Danson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Yes, the government has received a resolution from the Newfoundland Legislature to amend the British North America Act, more specifically, to amend Term 17 of the Terms of Union. This resolution was received by the Governor General on October 28, 1968.


STATUTES OF CANADA
Mr. Woolliams: 1.	What progress has been made in the consolidation and revision of the Statutes of Canada?
2.	When is it now anticipated that the revised Statutes of Canada will be (a) published (b) available for distribution (c) proclaimed?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: 1.	The text of the public general statutes has been consolidated and revised to December 31, 1969, and manuscript therefor sent to the Canadian Government Printing Bureau.
Because of technological difficulties encountered in developing software to produce a bilingual page format by automation, the printing schedule fell behind in 1969 with the

October 5. 1970
Questions
result that legislation enacted 1969 had to be added to the manuscript. The Printing Bureau was finally able to go into full scheduled production of the revision in June, 1970, but to avoid further delay in editing and proofreading, the legislation enacted in 1970, and to be enacted in the interim before proclamation of the revision will be included in supplements, the first of which is now being prepared.
2.	(a) The revised production schedule
estimates the completion of composition in late November, 1970, with a press run to follow immediately thereafter, (b) Publication will follow the press run after the Statute Roll has been presented to the Governor in Council. It is hoped to present the Statute Roll in November or December, (c) The printed volumes cannot be distributed across Canada before late Spring, 1971. (d) The most logical date for proclamation now appears to be July 1, 1971.


INCORPORATION OF CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS 1960-70
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many charitable organizations have been incorporated in each year 1960 to 1970 inclusive?
2.	(a) How many charitable organizations have ceased to operate in each year 1960 to 1970 inclusive (b) what are the names of each (c) where was each located (d) for what reason did each cease to operate?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. The number of corporations incorporated under Part II of the Canada Corporations Act, in each of the years 1960 to 1970, is as follows:
1969-70	129
1968-69	101
1967-68	91
1966-67	85
1965-66	67
1964-65	65
1963-64	59
1962-63	64
1961-62	57
1960-61	57
1959-60	45
It should be noted that these figures include all corporations incorporated under Part II of the Canada Corporations Act and not all of these are charitable organizations.
2.	This information is not available. It could only be obtained through a file by file review of the 17,000 files in the Corporations branch. The whole question as to what information

should be collected in connection with corporations incorporated under Part II of the Canada Corporations Act is, however, under review in the department.


INDIAN RESERVE-ST. REGIS
Mr. Caouelie: 1.	Have Indians specific rights with regard to crossing the bridge between the Indian Reserve at St. Regis and the United States and, if so, (a) do the rights still exist (b) if not, how were these rights lost?
2.	Was the Indian Reserve at St. Regis incorporated in the City of Cornwall, Ontario and, if so,
(a)	were the Indians consulted (b) where (c) on what date (d) did the Indians approve of this change?
3.	Is the Indian Reserve at St. Regis subject to the Ontario Assessment Act and, if so, do the terms of this Act conflict with those of the Indian Act?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. In
1933, the former Roosevelt Bridge, now dismantled, was converted from a railway bridge to accommodate both rail and vehicular traffic. On August 14, 1933, a Licence of Occupation was granted to the Cornwall-Northern New York International Bridge Corporation, incorporated under the laws of the State of New York, to use and occupy certain lands adjacent to the New York Central Railway Company tracks, for a period of 25 years. On the expiration of this Licence of Occupation in 1958, the Band required a four and a half year extension of the licence because of the delay in the construction of the new bridge. Clause 4 of the 1933 Licence stipulated that... "All the Indians of the St. Regis Band, the Missionary and all departmental officials, shall have for and during the term of any Licence granted by the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs to the Cornwall-Northern New York International Bridge Corporation, and of any renewal thereof, the right to go to and fro over the said road and bridges used in connection with the said road without charge, tax or tolls whatsoever in respect of their persons, their vehicles, implements, stock or their personal belongings; provided, however, that an Indian using his vehicle for hire or for the transport for hire of persons or freight or for any purpose of gain, shall not be allowed free passage". Order-in-Council dated November 29, 1956, conveyed some 130 acres of land to the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority for the new bridges and road across Cornwall Island. Although the Authority has issued passes to Band members permitting the holders free
October 5, 1970

passage over the new bridges, the St. Regis Band do not have contractual rights guaranteeing this privilege.
2.	On February 22, 1956, the City of Cornwall obtained the approval of the Ontario Municipal Board to extend its boundaries to include portions of the Cornwall Island Reserve. According to departmental information, there was no prior consultation with the St. Regis Band.
3.	No.


REGISTERED CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Robinson: Will the federal government consider the feasibility of establishing an information service with respect to registered charitable organizations?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):: The only information about a specific charitable organization that can be divulged is whether it is registered as such for income tax purposes. Such information is available at District Taxation Offices.


GRANTS UNDER DEFENCE EXPORT MODERNIZATION PROGRAM
Mr. Broadbent: 1.	For the fiscal year 1969-70 (a) which and how many non-resident owned or controlled firms have been awarded financial grants or incentives under the Defence Export Modernization Program, administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce (b) in each case, what was the total financial grant or incentive allotted?
2.	For the same year (a) which and how many Canadian owned or controlled firms have been
Questions
awarded financial grants under the Defence Export Modernization Program (b) in each case, what was the total financial grant or incentive allotted?


Jean-Luc Pepin: See reply to written question 1,719 tabled this day.


RESEARCH STUDIES, DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND FORESTRY
Mr. Robinson: 1.	What research studies have been carried out by, or on behalf of, the Department of Fisheries and Forestry during each year 1960 to 1969 inclusive?
2.	What research studies are now being carried on and/or are contemplated during the next five years?
3.	What was the cost of each of the research studies completed in each year 1960 to 1969 inclusive?
4.	What is the estimated cost of each of the studies now in being or contemplated during the next five years?


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: 1.	Hundreds of projects (studies) have been conducted by the Canadian Forestry Service since 1960. A "KWIC Index" to projects, instituted in 1969, shows that 914 projects were active last year. Of these, 702 were started in 1960 or later, and 316 are currently scheduled to be completed in the early 1970's. At present the Fisheries Research Board is working on 200 research projects.
2.	See Item 1.
3.	The total expenditures, by service, have been as follows:
Forest Resource Research and services $ (000)	Forest Products Research and services $ (000)	Fisheries Research Board $ (000)1960-1961	4,591	969	4,5901961-1962	5,134	1,100	4,5781962-1963	5,486	1,130	5,1951963-1964	5,992	1,155	5,2841964-1965	6,582	1,263	5,9591965-1966	6,748	1,309	6,8541966-1967	9,190	1,842	8,3681967-1968	11,855	2,373	10,1421968-1969	13,642	2,734	11,0141969-1970	15,432	3,086	13,0354.	Information not available.
October 5, 1970
Questions


CONSULTANTS ENGAGED, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
Mr. Robinson: How many consultants have been engaged by the Department of Labour during each year 1950 to 1970 inclusive (a) what was the cost of the consultants
(b)	how were the consultants utilized (c) for what reasons were the consultants necessary?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Departmental records show that three consultant firms were retained in the specified period, (a) (i) 1956-66, $40,250; (ii) 1968-69, $9,000; (iii) 1968-69, $9,450. (b) (i) Preparation of an organizational study of the Canada Department of Labour; (ii) Provision of public relations counsel; (iii) Compilation of a public attitude survey, (c) In each case, the consultants were retained because the required skills or resources were not available to perform the tasks.
COMPLEXITY OF SOCIETY AND SOCIAL ACTION Question No. 1,796


Mr. Orlikow:: 1.	To what extent does the federal government recognize the increasing complexity of our society and the shortening time base that is available for effective social action?
2.	To what extent does the federal government recognize the funding problems of cross-disciplinary studies that do not fall into existing categories or precedents?
3.	What action does the federal government contemplate in setting up funding mechanisms for cross-disciplinary or other studies submitted by national scientific organizations?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1. Fully.
2.	The government recognizes the value of mission-oriented research that does not fall into existing categories or precedents. Special circumstances arise, however, in the funding of cross disciplinary research projects proposed by private groups. These circumstances are now under review and it is expected that a report, containing recommendations, will be made to the Government within the next few months.
3.	It is too early to say what funding mechanisms may eventually be established. This will depend on the study referred to in Part 2, above.


COMPENSABLE DOLLAR LOSSES RESULTING FROM ACCIDENTS 1967-68
Mr. Mather: What was the percentage of the compensable dollar losses resulting from deaths and serious injuries in 1967 and 1968 accidents paid by the auto insurance industry?


James Alexander Jerome: An analysis of automobile claims under the category "deaths and serious injuries" is not available from data filed with the Department of Insurance by insurance companies registered to transact automobile insurance business. Data is available for automobile liability claims in general. The ratios of such claims incurred to premiums earned for 1967 and 1968 are reported as 69.0 per cent and 70.4 per cent respectively in the Report of the Superintendent of Insurance for Canada (Volume 1 for each year, page 12B)


INFORMATION CANADA-PUBLICATIONS
Mr. Coates: 1.	Does the Queen's Printer sell certain publications at an increased cost for the English edition as compared with the French edition, such as (a) Meat-How to buy and prepare (b) How to run a business (c) Dinosaurs of Canada and, if so, for what reason?
2 What is the cost of these publications in English and in French at government book stores?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister without Portfolio):: 1. The policy is that the same selling price applies to the English and to the French edition of any publication.
2.	The first one is $1 and the two others are 75 cents each.


ESTIMATED VALUE OF STRATEGIC WAR MATERIALS SUPPLIED TO UNITED STATES
Mr. Mather: What, in dollars, is the estimated amount of the value of strategic war materials, weapons or components of war weapons supplied to the United States by Canadian sources during the past four years?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The value of defence materials and equipment procured by the United States in Canada under the Canada-United States Defence Production Sharing Program, for the four years ended December
1969:	(Millions
Year	Cdn. $)
1966	317.1
1967	307.7
1968	320.0
1969	299.8

Canada exports items such as raw materials, fuels and lubricants. These materials
October 5, 1970

Questions
are exported to	many countries	for use in	tals operated by the Department of Veteranstheir processing	and service industries. It is	Affairs:	1965-66,	$36,624,572;	1966-67,	$36,-not possible to	establish what	proportion	518,378;	1967-68,	$36,271,837;	1968-69,	$41,-of such exports	may ultimately	find their	741,338;	1969-70,	$37,606,618.
way into defence production.


COST OF MAINTENANCE OF MILITARY HOSPITALS
Mr. Caouelte: What was the amount paid annually during the past five years for the maintenance of military hospitals in Canada?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Department of National Defence and the Department of Veterans Affairs as follows: Records in the Department of National Defence are not maintained in a manner which would permit this information to be readily available. However, for the fiscal year 1969-70, building upkeep and utility costs covering the National Defence Medical Centre, Ottawa, Canadian Forces' Hospitals, Halifax, Kingston, Cold Lake and Esquimalt totalled $555,700. Veterans' hospi-
3.	Dates of Occupancy
October 1, 1954 to October 14, 1961 March 1, 1964 to	22,000
July 31, 1964
4.	30,000 square feet.
5.	Answered in Part 3.


ENGAGEMENT OF CONSULTANTS BY DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Robinson: How many consultants have been engaged by the Department of External Affairs during each year 1950 to 1970 inclusive (a) what was the cost of the consultants (b) how were the consultants utilized
(c)	for what reasons were the consultants necessary?


Mitchell William Sharp: The Records covering fiscal years 1950-51 to 1963-64 were destroyed. From 1964-65 to 1970-71, the number of consultants engaged was as follows: 1964-65, 6; 1965-66, 9; 196667, 5; 1967-68, 9; 1968-69, 9; 1969-70, 11; 197071, 5. (a) 1964-65, $14,592.00; 1965-66, $25,711.00; 1966-67, $18,523.00; 1967-68, $58,466.00;


Mr. Rowland: 1.	Has the federal government rented space in the Traveller's Building, 283 Bannatyne Avenue, Winnipeg, and, if so, for what period of time?
2.	What was the amount of the annual rental fee paid for each of the years during which the federal government rented space?
3.	Which department occupied the space during each year?
4.	What was the total floor space rented in each year?
5.	To what use was the space put in each year?


Arthur Laing: So far as the Department of Public Works is concerned:
1.	Yes. For 10 years commencing October 1, 1954.
2.	$54,000.
Canada Number Registration Programme, conducted by the Unemployment Insurance Commission and Department of National Revenue (Taxation Division))
1968-69, $82,213.00; 1969-70, $36,542.00; 197071, $18,558.00. (b) The consultants have produced research, studies and analyses^in such fields as international law and cultural affairs, (c) These persons were employed so that the Department of External Affairs could take advantage of their expertise and have them complete projects or studies which the Department could not undertake with its sole resources.


Mr. Sallsman: Has the National Energy Board conducted any efficiency studies on public ownership of the gas and oil industry to determine whether or not public ownership would be beneficial and, if not, will the appropriate Minister direct the National Energy
Number of
Square Feet	Tenant
30,000	Unemployment Insurance Commission

October 5, 1970
Questions
Board, under Section 22(2) ol the National Energy Board Act to undertake such a study and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy. Mines and Resources):: The National Energy Board reports as follows: No, in view of other priorities this study is not desirable at this time.


Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	Do Canadian wheat producers receive less return, per bushel of wheat, than European community wheat producers and, if so, by what amount?
2.	Do Canadian barley producers receive less return per bushel of barley than European community barley producers and, if so, by what amount?
3.	Is it possible for the Canadian Government to institute practices which would result in the Canadian producers of wheat and barley receiving returns from their products comparable to those received by European producers?


Hon. Otio E. Lang (For ihe Canadian Wheat Board):: In so far as the Canadian Wheat Board is concerned: 1 and 2.
Wheat and Barley Producers-Average Returns Per Bushel in U.S. Dollars
	Wheat	Barley
	1968/69	1968/69
West Germany	2.55	2.01Canada	1.30	.79Difference	1.25	1.22France	2.48	1.70Canada	1.30	.79Difference	1.18	.91Italy	2.73	2.12Canada	1.30	.79Difference	1.43	1.33Netherlands	2.72	1.95Canada	1.30	.79Difference	1.42	1.16Belgium	2.55	1.80Canada	1.30	.79Difference	1.25	1.01
Note: Wheat returns for EEC countries do not include durum.
3.	The EEC is a net importer of grain. Most of the grain produced in the EEC is also consumed there. Thus, the EEC countries are able to pass most of the cost of their high support prices on directly to EEC consumers. Domestic producers are protected from competition through a system of import levies and funds from this source are used to subsidize exports.
[Mr. Saltsman.l
Canada on the other hand is a major net exporter of grain. If EEC levels of support were adopted in Canada the cost to taxpayers of export subsidies to reduce prices to competitive levels would be much greater than in countries which export a small proportion of their grain production. Similarly Canadian livestock producers, who are also interested in increasing their exports, would require subsidies to offset the increased cost of feed-stuffs. The cost of these subsidies to livestock producers and to exporters of grain would be prohibitive.


Mr. Crouse: 1.	What progress is being made towards acquiring a site for a new federal building in Bridgewater, Nova Scotia?
2.	On what date is it anticipated a site will be acquired?
3.	After acquisition of a site, on what date does the government plan construction of a federal building?


Arthur Laing: 1. A number of sites are being investigated.
2 and 3. Not known.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton: West):
1.	What is the percentage contribution by the Government of Canada to any construction now under way in the Trans Canada Highway system and does it vary from province to province?
2.	How many miles, by province, remain to be completed and what is the anticipated completion date for an all Canada highway link to Trans Canada Highway standard?
3.	Since 1966, what has been the total, by province, of the federal contribution toward the cost of the construction of the Trans Canada Highway, and, in each year, what was the percentage contribution, by province, of any such construction?
4.	What is the estimated cost of completing the Trans Canada Highway and what is the estimated federal share?


Arthur Laing: 1. In the Atlantic Provinces the federal government's contribution is 90 per cent of the shareable construction costs. In the remaining provinces the federal contribution is 90 per cent of the shareable construction costs on a designated 10 per cent of the mileage in each province and 50 per cent of the shareable construction costs on the remaining 90 per cent of the mileage.
October 5, 1970

2. Province	Miles to be completed
as of June 1970
Newfoundland	134*
Nova Scotia	3*
New Brunswick	69*
Prince Edward Island	nil
Quebec	173
Ontario	108
Manitoba	53*
Saskatchewan	100*
Alberta	41*
British Columbia	5
Questions
*Primarily upgrading of previously constructed sections to Trans-Canada Highway standards.
Under the legislation Canada shares in construction costs for work done to December 31, 1970. With the exception of sections which might be under construction on that date, the remainder of the highway will be paved.
3.	Federal contributions towards shareable construction costs follow:
Province
Newfoundland
Nova Scotia
New Brunswick
Prince Edward Island
Quebec
Ontario
Manitoba
Saskatchewan
Alberta
British Columbia
1966-67	1967-68
5.8	9.5
18.3	12.9
10.6	11.2
0.4	0.9
41.8	22.1
2.9	5.2
nil	1.1
0.4	1.0
0.3	0.5
0.4	0.5
Millions of Dollars 1968-69	1969-70
9.1	6.7
10.0	6.7
3.2	2.0
0.2	0.1
8.8	3.1
3.1	4.5
1.2	0.7
0.7	0.3
0.6	1.1
0.5	1.6
The federal government contributes towards construction costs for an equivalent two-lane facility under the percentage formula given in Part 1. Costs for the acquisition of right of way and for additional lanes beyond a two lane facility are the responsibility of the province and are not shareable by the federal government. Thus the actual costs to the provinces are not known.
4.	Legislation provides a maximum federal contribution of $825 million for work done to December 31, 1970. Contributions to the Provinces to June 30, 1970, amount to $783 million leaving a balance of $41.9 million available for work done by the completion date of the program.


Mr. Sulatycky: How many boxcars of each type suitable for hauling wheat did Canadian railroads own in 1955, 1960. 1965 and 1969?


Mr. Gerard Duquel (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The Canadian Transport Commission advise as follows: Canadian Pacific: March 1, 1955, 39,853 cars with 5' or 6' doors. April 1, 1960, 38,618 cars
with 5' or 6' doors, 6,992 cars with 8' doors, 45,610 Total. July 1, 1965, 35,965 cars with 5' or 6' doors, 8,833 cars with 8' doors, 44,798 Total. July 1, 1969, 30,658 cars with 5' or 6' doors, 8,585 cars with 8' doors, 39,243 Total.
Note: While figures have been included for cars with eight foot doors capable of handling grain it should be noted that these would not normally be used and that only very rarely would these cars be used in grain service.
Canadian National Railways:	Company
records are incapable of producing information concerning ownership of cars capable of hauling grain during past years. Listed below are figures of the highest and lowest number of cars in grain service for a four-year period:
1969	1968	1967	1966Low	9,200	9,400	10,200	9,700High	14,000	13,002	13,000	12,600
As of June 1, 1970, Canadian National owned 26,713 boxcars and 3,582 covered hopper cars capable of hauling grain. It should be noted that in terms of capacity the covered hopper type car is equivalent to one and one-half boxcars.

October 5, 1970
Questions


Mr, Broadbenl: 1 How much has the federal government contributed to the Canadian Olympic Committee for each year since 1964?
2.	Is the Committee bound in any way to accept restraints imposed by Canada's external policy
with respect to (a) communist countries (b) South Africa (c) Rhodesia?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Under the Fitness and Amateur Sport Program the Canadian Government has contributed directly to the Canadian Olympic Association the following amounts of money. (See annex following).


[Stage Direction]
Project	1964-65	1965-66	1966-67	1967-68	1968-69	1969-70	Total$	$	$	$	$	$	$Olympic Medical Archives	
Establishment of a National Secretariat . Pan American Games 	
Olympic Winter Games	
Pre Olympic Meet Mexico 	
Olympic Summer Games	
Policy Meeting	. 8,500 . 50,000 . 76,000	30,000	30,000	30,000 56,953	30,000 32,785 13,867 73,485	4,650	8,500 120,000 56,953 82,785 13,867 149,485 4,650Total 	. 134,500	30,000	30,000	86,953	150,137	4,650	436,2402.	The Canadian Olympic Association is a private association over which the Canadian Government exercises no control. The Association has the obligation, however, to accept such restraints imposed by Canada's external policy (e.g. Canada's United Nations-Rhodesia Regulations) as may apply to all Canadians.
Mr. Lundrigan: Were special arrangements made for the crew of the ill-fated Patrick Morris to contact their homes immediately on landing at Point Cartier and, if so, what were they?


Gérard Duquet: The management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows: Prior to the rescue vessel arriving at Point Cartier the names of survivors were obtained by telephone and the families of the men were contacted by Newfoundland area officers.
When the men landed at Seven Islands they were immediately taken by charter bus to the airport where a charter Air Canada aircraft was standing by to fly them to Sydney. On arrival at Sydney those wishing to contact their families did so.


Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of National Revenue have the use of a computer in its operations and, if so, to what extent is it utilized?
2.	Is the computer programmed 24 hours per day and, if not, for what reason?
3.	What is the number of hours planned for utilization of the computer?
4.	What has been the annual cost of computer services for each year 1960 to 1970 inclusive?
5.	How many programs are in preparation for the computer at the present time and how will each affect the efficiency of the Department?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In so far as the Customs and Excise Division is concerned: 1. The Customs and Excise Division utilizes a computer in the following operations: (a) Financial management statements prepared by the Department of Supply and Services computer facilities, (b) Sales tax licencee distribution reporting system provided by the I.B.M. Service Bureau facility.
2 and 3. The Department of Nationa Revenue, Customs and Excise, does not have its own computer facilities.
4.	Financial management statements are presently supplied by the Department of Supply and Services on a no charge basis.
Oclober 5, 1970

The sales tax licencee distribution reporting system is provided by the I.B.M. Service Bureau facility at a cost of approximately $10,000 per year. This system has been in operation since 1968.
5.	At the present time preparations are in progress by Customs and Excise for possible computer applications in the field of Customs operations and Excise Tax administration.
In so far as the Taxation Division is concerned: 1. Yes. The	Taxation	division has4. 1960-65	1965-66	1966-67$	$	$Equipment Not Purchased Available	150,110	Equipment Not Rented Available	399,008	482,4645.	There are now 218 programs in preparation. Most of these are necessary to improve operations by enabling the department to handle the increasing workload without a proportionate increase in computer capability. Over 50 per cent of the new programs are in the statistical and management information fields and will not yield immediate gains but are necessary to provide the basis for future planning.


Mr. Gilbert: 1.	With regard to the answer to Part 2 of Question Number 1,527 as reported in Hansard of May-20, 1970 at page 7106, what are the known requirements of municipalities in each province for 1970 regarding water treatment projects?
2.	What were the previous commitments made in each province between the federal and provincial governments on water for financing the construction of water treatment projects?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: 1 and 2. The National Housing Act does not make provision for assisting in the financing of water treatment projects, and consequently Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is not involved in such an operation, as was pointed out in the answer to Part 1 of Question No. 1,527.


Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of Veterans Affairs have data processing equipment (automatic) and, if so, for how long?
Questions
the use of three computer systems. These are utilized 24 hours on scheduled work days and on weekends and statutory holidays as required.
2.	The computer systems are programmed for use 24 hours per day except for those weekends and statutory holidays when the use of the systems is not required.
3.	In a year, the time planned for utilization of each computer system ly 6,000 hours.	is approximate-1967-68	1968-69	1969-70$	$	$-	1,422,000	621,345899,853	1,229,013	877,2062.	What was the initial cost of the equipment?3.	What yearly costs are anticipated for data processing in the Department?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minisier of Veterans Affairs):: 1. Yes, 25 years.
2.	None. Equipment is contracted for on an annual rental basis.
3.	For the fiscal year 1970-71 the anticipated cost for data processing equipment is forecast at $33,678.


Mr. Mazankowski: Has the government any plans or programs available to provide the necessary funds for upgrading inadequate sanitation and sewage facilities of various municipalities across Canada?


Robert Knight Andras: In December, 1960, an amendment to the National Housing Act made provision for financial assistance to municipalities for the construction of sewage treatment facilities and trunk sewage collector systems. The assistance is in the form of loans, not exceeding two-thirds of the cost of the eligible works, for a term of not more than 50 years at favourable interest rates. As a further incentive, the borrower is forgiven repayment of 25 per cent of the principal amount of the loan, and of the interest on the loan accrued to the date of completion. One of the amendments to the National Housing Act, in June, 1969, extended the period for forgiveness to March 31, 1975. Loans approved,

October 5, 1970
Questions
during the first eight years of the program, have averaged about $35.0 million per year, increasing to $50.0 million in 1969. The Capital Budget of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation was increased in 1969 to provide for this higher level, and has been further increased in 1970 to $75.0 million.


Mr. Laprise: During 1969-70 and 1970-71, did the government make grants to the National Canadian Institute for the Blind and, if so (a) what were the amounts of the grants (b) for what purposes were they awarded?


John Carr Munro: Yes, the Department of National Health and Welfare did make grants to the Canadian Institute for the blind, (a) In
1969-70 two amounts were granted, the annual sustaining grant of $55,000, and a special grant of $500,000. In 1970-71 the annual sustaining grant of $55,000 will be paid assuming approval of departmental estimates. The sustaining grants are in support of the general operations and programs of the national organization. (b) The special grant of $500,000 was to enable CNIB to assist its provincial divisions in Quebec and in Newfoundland and Labrador in improving the level and quality of CNIB services to the blind in those provinces.


Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources have data processing equipment (automatic) and, if so, for how long?
2.	What was the initial cost of the equipment?
3.	What yearly costs are anticipated for data processing in the department?


John James Greene: 1. Yes, since 1962.
2.	All major items of unit record equipment are leased rather than owned.
3.	Costs of unit record equipment and services for the fiscal year 1970-71 are estimated at $83,000.
[Mr. Andras.l


Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of Veterans Affairs have the use of a computer in its operations and, if so, to what extent is it utilized?
2.	Is the computer programmed 24 hours per day and, if not, for what reason?
3.	What is the number of hours planned for utilization of the computer?
4.	What has been the annual cost of computer services for each year 1960 to 1970 inclusive?
5.	How many programmes are in preparation for the computer at the present time and how will each affect the efficiency of the Department?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: 1. Yes. Computer service is provided by the Department of Supply and Services in the preparation of monthly accounting and payrolls. The time required for these applications is not known by this Department. In addition, the Department occasionally rents computer time for special projects (see answer No. 4).
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not known (see answer No. 1).
4.	The Department has not been required to pay for monthly accounting and payrolls. Expenditures by the Department for occasional computer time: 1959-60 to 1967-68, No expenditure data available; 1968-69, $4,441; 1969-70, $4,221.
5.	One. Provide management with more updated data on the financial aspects of property sales.


Mr. Robinson: 1 Does the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources have the use of a computer in its operations and, if so, to what extent is it utilized?
2.	Is the computer programmed 24 hours per day and, if not, for what reason?
3.	What is the number of hours planned for utilization of the computer?
4.	What has been the annual cost of computer services for each year 1960 to 1970 inclusive?
5.	How many programmes are in preparation for the computer at the present time and how will each affect the efficiency of the Department?


John James Greene: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources makes extensive use of a number of computing facilities in its operation. In general, these can be divided into two classes; those which the
October 5, 1970

Department owns or leases and those computing services which are purchased from service bureaux or computer utilities.
Owned or leased computers: The Department owns or leases two medium scale computers, both of which are Control Data 3100's, one of which is located in Ottawa, the other at Bedford Institute of Oceanography in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. A number of other special purpose computers are used by the Department for such purposes as control of scientific experiments and collection of scientific data.
Computer utilities and service bureaux: The Department makes use of a number of service bureaux and utilities for a variety of reasons. Included in these reasons are: (a) the inadequacy of owned or leased equipment to process the required workload; (b) more economical operation of the computing utilities equipment for particular problems; (c) the geographic dispersion of many of the Department's research activities.
2.	Over the past several years the Control Data 3100 computer in Ottawa has been operating for three shifts a day, five days a week. At present, it is operating at full capacity, that is three shifts a day, seven days a week. In fact, the computer is being used at a rate in excess of the recommended 20 hours a day.
The Control Data 3100 at the Bedford Institute of Oceanography is operate dat the rate of three shifts a day, five days a week.
3.	For the immediate future, no diminution of the workload is anticipated. In the longer term, there will be a substantial growth of workload.
4.	It is difficult to state, as asked, the cost of computing services by year from 1960 to 1970. This is partly for the reason that the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources has not existed in its present form for this period, and also, for most of the period, computing costs have been accumulated with general administrative costs. The following estimated costs are available and include personnel costs, computer rental costs, and the cost of computer time purchased from utilities: 1967-68, $916,367; 1968-69, $1,705,154; 1969-70, $2,287,191.
5.	Because of the diversified nature of the Department's activities, (that is basically research) it is difficult to state how many programs are in preparation for the computer at any point in time. On the average, it is estimated that between 250 and 350 programs
Questions
are in development at any one time. Most of these programs are developed by scientists and are directly related to the scientist's own work. Programs developed affect the efficiency of the Department in several ways: (a) increase the efficiency of the scientist in his research activities; (b) enable the scientist to work on projects where the nature of the problem or data is such that a solution without the use of computers would be impossible or, at best, impractical; and (c) contribute to the efficiency of the Department's administrative and managerial practices.


Mr. Coates: 1.	What was the cost of acquiring the land for the site of National Defence Headquarters?
2.	What was the name of the firm of consultants retained to advise the government on the National Defence Headquarters and what are the names of the principal officers of the firm?
3.	How much did the consultants receive in fees from the federal government, were these consultants the only firm involved in the reply received to Question Number 1,759 and, if not (a) what other consulting firms were involved (b) what did they receive in fees (c) for what reason were they included in the question regarding the cost of the new National Defence Headquarters?


Arthur Laing: 1. $2,937,284.
2. Parkin, Architects, Planners, 1500 Don Mills Road, Don Mills, Ont. There are nine partners: John C. Parkin; James E. Searle; E. J. Smith; E. R. Wilbee; John E. Owen;
D.	C. Rowland; Dr. H. E. H. Roy; W. J. Neish; D. H. Carter.
3	To September 15, 1970, Parkin received $943,853 in fees. There were other consultants as listed below:
(a) and (b)
Firm	Amount
Woods, Gordon & Co.	$7,042.76
McRostie Seto Genest	784.63
Canadian National Institute for the
Blind	7,920.00
Butts, Ross, Magwood &	Hall	552.00
DeLeuw, Cather	3,000.00
(c) As a standard procedure in the Department, all expenditures which can be directly charged to a specific project are shown against the cost of that project. All firms listed in (a) and (b) provided a service contributing directly to the construction of the new National Defence Headquarters.

October 5, 1970
Questions


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Prime Minister's and Privy Council offices, the Departments of National Defence and External Affairs as follows: 1. It is not possible to provide an answer at this time as it will be some weeks before all accounts are in. Actual flying time of the Canadian Armed Forces aircraft was 62.1 hours at an estimated cost of $809.50 per flying hour, $50,269.95. Crew expenses amounted to $9,074.45.
2 and 3. A total of 19 federal employees travelled with the Prime Minister, as follows:
Salary
Name	Appointment	scale or range $R. G. Robertson	Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet	37,000-40,000A. E. Ritchie	Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs	37,000-40,000Ivan L. Head	Legislative Assistant to the Prime Minister	25,000-30,000 (by contract)Romeo LeBlanc	Press Secretary to the Prime Minister	20,000-25,000J. L. Gray	President, Atomic Energy of Canada (New Zealand and Australia only)	Since Atomic Energy of Canada Limited operates in a competitive market, it is not company policy to divulge salary information.D. D. Transley	Vice President (Operations), Canadian International Development Agency	23,000-29,000A. G. Kniewasser	Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce	28,000-33,000Gordon Gibson	Executive Assistant to the Prime Minister	17,500-20,000John Gongos	Inspector, Royal Canadian Mounted Police	14,490-15,750J. B. Giroux	Inspector, Royal Canadian Mounted Police (to alternate with Inspector Gongos)	14,490-15,750H. Stewart	Director of Administration, Privy Council Office	19,000-23,500R. V. Gorham	Department of External Affairs, Far Eastern Division	20,377-22,627A. Donnelly	Press Assistant, Prime Minister's Office	15,000-17,500V. Chapman	Assistant, Prime Minister's Office	12,500-15,000Capt. R. Godfray	Canadian Armed Forces (baggage master)	Pay of rankMiss Cecile Viau	Private Secretary to the Prime Minister	10,000-12,500Miss Annette Walls	Secretary to the Clerk of the Privy Council	10,500-11,931Miss Therese Brazeau	Secretary, Prime Minister's Office	7,500-10,000Y. Rivet	Communicator, Department of External Affairs	7,035- 7,773


Mr. Coates: 1.	What was the total cost to the taxpayers of the Prime Minister's Pacific tour?
2.	How many employees of the federal government travelled with the Prime Minister, what positions do they hold and what is the salary classification of each?
3.	How many miles were travelled by the government aircraft and how many members of the armed forces were involved in the operation?
4.	How many receptions were sponsored by the federal government in the various countries visited by the Prime Minister and what was the total cost of this entertainment?
[Mr. Laing.l
October 5, 1970



The Canadian Armed Forces aircraft travelled 24,864 miles with a crew of 16 personnel in the following ranks at pay of rank: Lieutenant Colonel, 1; Major, 1; Captain, 4; Chief Warrant Officer, 1; Master Warrant Officer, 1; Warrant Officer, 2; Sergeant, 1; Corporal, 3; Private, 2.
4.	Nil. However, some informal gatherings were arranged by Canadian diplomatic representatives in the various countries to enable the Prime Minister to meet the local Canadian community. The costs were met by the officers concerned out of their representational allowances.


Mr. Coales: 1.	What additional work was carried out by Cambrian Construction Limited on the Jackson Building and what was the cost to the federal government for the extras?
2.	What formula was used to determine the cost of the additional work that was carried out?
3.	What was the estimated profit to the contractor for carrying out the additional work?


Arthur Laing: 1. All the additional work and cost will not be known until the work is completed. At this time, it is expected that the work will be completed in December 1970.
Additional work:	Revisions to exterior
walls, necessary as the frame of the old building differed from the assumptions upon which the re-design had been based. This condition was not apparent until demolition of the walls had been completed.
-Estimated cost-$350,000
As work progressed, additional work had to be carried out to provide for as-found conditions. This involved revamping of existing mechanical and electrical systems, levelling of floors, changes to the existing roof, reinforcing the existing structure, miscellaneous plastering, etc.
-Estimated cost-$90,000
During construction, some renovations were made due to changed requirements and to improve the design. This included provision of canteen and cafeteria facilities which requirements were not finalized until after a contract had been awarded.
-Estimated cost-$125,695
After the contract had been awarded, the Treasury Board approved the adoption of the open office landscape concept. This involved
Questions
the provision of carpeting, draperies, special partitions, etc. It also involved the deletion of vinyl asbestos tile, Venetian blinds and standard partitioning.
-Estimated cost-$124,305
Total estimated cost of additional work
-$690,000
2.	The formula used to determine the cost of additional work is outlined in the general conditions of the contract. Generally, the contractor is paid his costs directly attributable to the work, plus an allowance of 10 per cent for other expenditures and for profit. The other expenses are for costs relating to overhead, head office expenses and general administration costs to the contractor, including finance and interest charges.
3.	$69,000 less head office and other expenses as outlined in Part 2.


Mr. Harding: Has the Food and Drug Directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare done any research into the PCB content in Canadian foods?


John Carr Munro: The Food and Drug Directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare has undertaken an active program of research on the development of analytical methods for the PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) and on their metabolism in animals. At present the PCB content of foods has not been determined but it is planned to begin a survey program later this year.


Mr. Douglas (Assiniboia): 1.	How much did the government collect in taxes on the sale and use of tobacco in the latest fiscal year for which figures are available?
2.	How much money was spent in that same year to assist the tobacco industry and producers in Canada?
3.	How much money was spent by the Department of National Health and Welfare in that same year to discourage the use of tobacco in Canada?
4.	What is government policy with regard to the production and use of tobacco in Canada?
5.	How much was spent by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce on promoting the export of tobacco to foreign countries in the latest year for which figures are available?

October 5, 1970
Questions
6.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion made any grants to the tobacco industry and, if so, who were the recipients and what were the amounts of each grant?


James Alexander Jerome: 1. During
the fiscal year 1969-70 excise duty of $193,791,374.63 and excise tax of $291,346,502.56 was collected on cigars, cigarettes, and manufactured tobacco. In addition, the general sales tax applies to these items but statistics are not available as to the revenue which has resulted from the sale of individual products.
2.	1968-69, $536,160. 1969-70, $489,337.
3.	For fiscal year 1968-69 an amount of $239,649 was spent by the Health Services Branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare for research and health education to discourage cigarette smoking in Canada.
4.	The policy of the Department of National Health and Welfare is to discourage cigarette smoking and for those who continue to smoke, to encourage the use of less hazardous products and ways to smoke.
5.	The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce in the fiscal year 1969-70 spent approximately $15,000 on a trade mission promoting the export of tobacco.
6.	Yes. During the fiscal year ending March 31, 1970, the offers under A.D.I.A. were made to: Tobacco Acres Ltd., Brooklyn, P.E.I., $29,606; Joseph C. Spriet, Montague, P.E.I., $7,219; Belfast Tobacco Growers, Belfast, P.E.I., $80,000; Island Tobacco, Montague, P.E.I., $260,000; Iona Farms Ltd., Iona, P.E.I., $42,089; John A. Power Ltd., Greenfields, P.E.I., $4,700; Riverbrook Farms Ltd., Hillar-ton, N.S., $18,000; Bastos du Canada, Louise-ville, Que., $467,502.


Mr. Skoberg: 1.	What is the total amount of Canada's aid program to Francophone, Africa?
2.	Does the government have data on the amount of aid from the Province of Quebec to Francophone, Africa and, if so, what is the total of such aid?
3.	How many Canadian embassies are located in Francophone, Africa?
4.	When were these embassies built or acquired?
5.	How many employees are on staff at each embassy?
6.	What is the total amount paid in salaries at each embassy?
7.	What is the total amount paid for the upkeep of each embassy?


Mitchell William Sharp: In so far as the Canadian International Development Agency and the Department of External Affairs are concerned: 1. The total amount of funds allocated for Canada's bilateral aid program to Francophone Africa is $34.1 mililon for the fiscal year 1969/70.
2.	No.
3.	There are five Canadian Embassies located in Francophone Africa at the present time.
4.	These chanceries were acquired at the following times: Dakar, Senegal: leased in 1966, then purchased in 1968. Abidjan, Ivory Coast: leased in 1969. Tunis, Tunisia: leased in 1966. Kinshasa, Congo: leased in 1967, a former building was leased by this Department in 1963 but prior to that date was occupied by the Canadian Trade Commissioner Service for a number of years. Yaounde, Cameroun: leased in 1963.
5. Number of employees:
Canada based	Locally engaged	TotalDakar	11	7	18Abidjan	7	8	15Tunis	8	7	15Kinshasa	9	7	16Yaounde	8	9	176. Salaries:	Dakar,	$144,065;	Abidjan,$77,941; Tunis,	, $98,508;	Kinshasa,	$76,489;
Yaounde, $91,318.
7.	Operations costs*:	Dakar, $349,646;
Abidjan, $221,794; Tunis, $166,745; Kinshasa, $245,429; Yaounde, $252,501.
* Figures are based on 1969-70 fiscal year.


Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of Public Works have the use of a computer in its operations and, if so, to what extent is it utilized?
2.	Is the computer programmed 24 hours per day and, if not, for what reason?
3.	What is the number of hours planned for utilization of the computer?
4.	What has been the annual cost of computer services for each year 1960 to 1970 inclusive?
5.	How many programmes are in preparation for the computer at the present time and how will each affect the efficiency of the Department?
October 5. 1970


Arthur Laing: 1. The Department does not have its own computer but uses the services provided
Questions
by the Department of Supply and Services and to a lesser extent private service bureaux. 2, 3 and 5. Not applicable.
4.	Fiscal year	Data processing	Computer
services	rentals
1967- 68	-	$	550.921968- 69	$ 47,823.74	210.271969- 70	123,103.12	19,823.22
Total
$	550.92
48,034.01 142,926.34
Note: No data available prior to 1967-68.


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,979
David Orlikow: 1.	How many books, pamphlets, etc., have been prohibited from entering Canada in each of the past five years under Item 99201-1, Schedule C of the Custom Tariff Act on the grounds that they are of a treasonable or seditious nature?
2.	How many books, pamphlets, etc., have been prohibited from entering Canada in each of the past five years under Item 99201-1, Schedule C of the Custom Tariff Act on the grounds that they are of an immoral or indecent character?
3.	What official or officials in the Department of National Revenue or what experts outside of the Department make the decisions prohibiting entry of the above-mentioned items?
4.	What procedures have been established for appeals by individuals or organizations who feel that the decisions of the Department are unfair or improper?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: 1. 1969, two importations; 1968, Nil; 1967; one importation; 1966-1965: information not available.
2.	1969, 2,530 importations; 1968, 518 importations; 1967, 115 importations; 1966-1965: information not available.
3.	Decisions can only be made by officials of Customs and Excise. These decisions are first made by senior executives and on appeal by the Deputy Minister, and on further appeal by the Courts.
4.	Appeal procedures are set out in Sections 43 and 46A of the Customs Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 58, as amended.


Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of Labour have the use of a computer in its operations and, if so, to what extent is it utilized?
2.	Is the computer programmed 24 hours per day and, if not, for what reason?
3.	What is the number of hours planned for utilization of the computer?
4.	What has been the annual cost of computer services for each year 1960 to 1970 inclusive?
5.	How many programmes are in preparation for the computer at the present time and how will each affect the efficiency of the Department?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: 1.	Yes. A U9200 computer, for use as a terminal, was installed May 22, 1970, and operational June 8, 1970. At present, operator training is being carried out and existing programs modified for production via the terminal. When the terminal is not required, the U9200 will be used to perform listings, tabulation and simple card programmes.
2.	No. Present programmed requirements do not warrant a 24 hour schedule.
3.	For 1970-71, planned utilization is 8 hours per day. Given an anticipated increase in workload, a second shift is being considered for 1971-72.
4.	Annual cost of computer services 1960 to 1970 inclusive
Fiscal Year	Amount
1959-60	$ 52
1960-61	2,278
1961-62	3,382
1962-63	3,588
1963-64	16,900
1964-65	16,198
1965-66	22,629
1966-67	18,056
1967-68	40,133
1968-69	57,455
1969-70	156,920
5.	One hundred and four programs are in preparation. These are designed to supply data not now easily accessible, but required to meet approved program needs of the department. As these programs are in preparation stage, it is not possible at this time to estimate their final impact on the efficiency of the department.

October 5, 1970
Questions


Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of Labour have data processing equipment (automatic) and, if so, for how long?
2.	What was the initial cost of the equipment?
3.	What yearly costs are anticipated for data processing in the Department?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: 1.	The first ADP equipment was rented by the Department of Labour in 1950 and rental has been on a continuous basis since that time.
2.	No initial cost was involved as all equipment has been on a rental basis.
3.	For ADP equipment the yearly costs are estimated at $12,000.


Mr. Barnett: 1.	On what date was the Sayward, B.C., Post Office first established?
2.	On what date did the Canadian Permanent Committee of Geographical names first recognize Sayward, B.C. as a place name?


James Alexander Jerome: I am
informed by the Post Office Department and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources as follows: 1. July 1, 1886, know then as Sayward-Alberni Post Office.
2.	April 5, 1938.


Mr. Alexander: Has the government retained any foreign or international organizations, institutions or corporations to acquire lands in the Province of Ontario and, if so (a) for what reason (b) what are the names of the organizations, institutions or corporations (c) how much money is involved (d) where is the land situated?


James Alexander Jerome: No.


Mr. Fairweather: Have appointments been made to the Board of Governors of the International Development Research Centre, and (a) if so, who are the appointees (b) if not, when will the government announce the appointments?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, no appointments have been made to date. Announcements will be made in due course.


Mr. Fairweather: Since April 1, 1968, what post offices have been closed or are scheduled for closing before December 31, 1970 in the constituencies of Fundy-Royal and York-Sunbury?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister without Portfolio):: Since 1st April 1968:
Fundy-Royal E.D.
Mills tream Nauwigewauk Newcastle Creek North Minto Pamdenec Upham
Gaspereau Forks Hampton Lower Jemseg Lower Millstream Jemseg Narrows Shannon East Riverside
Post Offices to be c 1970:
Fundy-Royal E.D.
Coal Creek Edgetts Landing Oak Point Queenstown Surrey
Upper Gagetown Rusagonis Station


Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Has a basic carpentry course been established at the Adult Vocational Training Centre in Fort Smith, N.W.T.?
2.	Who is the instructor for the course?
3.	What equipment is available for the course?
4.	What classroom space is available (a) is this space adequate (b) if not, what plans are afoot for expansion?
5.	Have complaints been received concerning the inadequacy of facilities at the AVTC in Fort Smith and, If so (a) what are the complaints (b) what steps have been taken to deal with them?
York-Sunbury E.D. Napadogan Davidson Lake Magundy
osed before 31st December
York-Sunbury E.D. Astle
Kingsclear
October 5, 1970


J. Judd Buchanan: 1. Yes, this course has been established and is run by the Department of Education, Government of Northwest Territories.
2.	At the present time there is no instructor. The first course was completed on schedule June 5, 1970. The next course is not due to commence until August 3, 1970.
3.	Equipment consist of 592 tools and related items valued at approximately $7,000.
4.	Classroom space of 3,196 square feet is available, (a) This space is considered adequate for a class of ten students, (b) N/A.
5.	Yes, complaints have been received, (a) (i) Lack of space; (ii) lack of equipment; (iii) student grade level on entrance to class, (b) (i) Not considered valid when compared to other school; (ii) on the basis of the number
Division/Branch
Research and Statistics	Since
Health Services Food and Drug
Health Insurance and Resources Administration


Mr. Rose: 1.	Who have been guests on CTV program "Question Period" since the beginning of the fail season up to and including Sunday, April 26?
2.	How many were of the federal government?
3.	How many were employees of the federal government or of government agencies?
4.	How many were of opposition parties?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: The Secretary of State does not have the data required to provide the information requested.


Mr. Southam: 1.	Is the government giving consideration to compensating Grain Elevator Agents in Western Canada involved in assisting farmers to complete their application forms under the current "Lift" program and, if not, for what reason?
2.	If compensation is to be paid, when will it commence and in what amounts?
22478-62i
Questions
of students and type of course, existing equipment is considered adequate, (iii) the Centre is not post high school vocational technical school but a centre for upgrading and pre-employment skill training for individuals with little education.


Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of National Health and Welfare have data processing equipment (automatic) and, if so, for how long?
2.	What was the initial cost of the equipment?
3.	What yearly costs are anticipated for data processing in the Department?


John Carr Munro: 1	2	31969	$ 1,275	$ 64,0001968	$21,400	$ 79,400N/A	N/A	$100,000N/A	N/A	$ 20,9001970	$72,800	$ 21,900


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: 1.	The government has given consideration to compensating Grain Elevator Agents who have assisted farmers to complete applications under the "Lift" program. Because, under the Wheat Inventory Reduction Regulations, farmers are responsible for preparing such applications and delivering them to their Elevator Agents at the time of applying for Canadian Wheat Board permit books for the
1970-71 crop year and because assistance of this kind given to farmers by Elevator Agents is normally provided as a service to clients or customers, no compensation is to be paid by the government for such services.
2.	See answer to Question No. 1.


Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of Agriculture have data processing equipment (automatic) and, if so, for how long?
2.	What was the initial cost of the equipment?
3.	What yearly costs are anticipated for data processing in the Department?

October 5, 1970
Questions


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 1.	Yes, since 1935.
2.	The initial rental of equipment was $4,800 per annum.
3.	Current year's estimated cost of data processing equipment rentals and contract services is $582,730.


Mr. Robinson: 1 Does the Department of Agriculture have the use of a computer in its operations and, if so, to what extent is it utilized?
2.	Is the computer programmed 24 hours per day and, if not, for what reason?
3.	What is the number of hours planned for utilization of the computer?
4.	What has been the annual cost of computer services for each year 1960 to 1970 inclusive?
5.	How many programmes are in preparation for the computer at the present time and how will each affect the efficiency of the Department?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 1.	Yes, 24 hours a day for five days a week, for in house equipment.
2.	Yes, excepting Saturdays and Sundays, for in house equipment.
3.	The number of hours planned for future computer utilization depends on the type of computer operated in house, the number and nature of new applications and on utilization of outside computers and service bureaux.
4. Annual cost of computer services (departmental and outside facilities):
1960-61	1961-62	1962-63	1963-64	1964-65$17,053.78	$39,870.90	$39,979.00	$46,449.36	$76,800.971965-66	1966-67	1967-68	1968-69	1969-70$73,663.27	$195,006.78	$267,139.40	$273,818.49	$357,189.945.	Over 100 departmental applications are on computers at various universities and commercial agencies across Canada and about 75 on facilities at Ottawa. New programs are continually being written, primarily to provide more efficient analyses of scientific research data and to provide effective administrative support to Production and Marketing, Health of Animals and Agricultural Stabilization activities.
The above answers exclude the Board of Grain Commissioners and the National Farm Management Service (Canfarm) whose requirements are met through separate computer services.


Mr. Burfon: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion under the Regional Development Incentives Act authorized or provided an incentive grant or grants to Pratt Representatives' (Newfoundland) Limited and, if so, what is the amount of each grant?
2.	Who are the directors and executive officers of the company?
3.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
4.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


James Alexander Jerome: I am
informed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Bureau of Statistics as follows:
1.	This information was contained in the monthly report, tabled in Parliament on the operation of the Regional Development Act.
2.	The directors of Pratt Representatives' (Nfld.) Limited as of December 31, 1968 were: J. C. Hudson, Topsail Road, St. John's Nfld.; C. C. Pratt, 10 Waterford Ave., St. John's Nfld.; E. A. Pratt, 140 Waterford Bridge Road, St. John's, Nfld.; W. S. Rowe, 3 Ross Road, St. John's, Nfld.; N. H. Smith, Waterford Avenue, St. John's, Nfld.;
The executive officers were: C. C. Pratt, 10 Waterford Ave., St. John's, Nfld.; E. A. Pratt, President, 140 Waterford Bridge Road, St. John's, Nfld.; W. S. Rowe, Secretary-Treasurer, 3 Ross Road, St. John's, Nfld.; N. H. Smith, Managing-Director, Waterford Ave., St. John's, Nfld.
3.	Non-residents have no interest in the voting shares of the company either directly or through other holdings.
4.	None.
October 5, 1970


[Stage Direction]
Question. No. 2,015-Mr. Rodrique:
Since April 1, 1968, what post offices have been closed or are scheduled for closing prior to December 31, 1970 in the constituencies of (a) Beauce (b) Frontenac?
Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Minister without Portfolio):: Since April 1, 1968: (a) Beauce: Bellarmin, St-Ephrem Station, Station-St-Victor, St-Hilaire-de-Dorset. (b) Frontenac: Kinnear's Mills, Normand, Ste-Julie-Station.
Before December 31, 1970: (a) Beauce: Feuille d'Erable, Quatre-Chemins, St-Rene, St-Simon-les-Mines, (b) Frontenac: Broughton Station, St-Jean d'lrlande, Vimy Ridge Mine.


Mr. Rodrique: What is the cost of repair and maintenance for all buildings owned by the Department of Public Works in the constituency of Beauce?


Arthur Laing: For the fiscal year 1969-70 the total operation and maintenance costs for all Department of Public Works buildings was $62,154.01.


Mr. Rodrique: Has the Post Office Department considered reviewing its decision to close the St. Simon les Mines Post Office in the constituency of Beauce?


John Cole: This case was re-examined to ensure that a just decision had been made and there was no deviation from our established policy that could justify the retention of this office.


Mrs. Maclnnis: In preparation for the introduction of the jumbo jets, have any studies been undertaken, or are any in prospect, such as the one recently completed at Heathrow Airport in London, England, on the relationship between noise pollution and mental illness?


John Carr Munro: No studies have been undertaken by the Department of National Health and Welfare, nor are any in prospect
Questions
on the relationship between noise pollution and mental illness.
Continuous monitoring by the Department of Transport has indicated that lower levels of noise are being recorded for the jumbo jets (e.g. Boeing 747) than for current jet aircraft. Further, the reaction of people in the vicinity of airports to the jumbo jet is that the noise subjectively is less irritating, and the aircraft appears to be quieter.


Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion under the Regional Development Incentives Act authorized or provided an incentive grant or grants to Poste de Classification Mauricien Inc. and, if so, what is the amount of each grant?
2.	Who are the directors and executive officers of the company?
3.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
4.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


James Alexander Jerome: 1 and 2.
This information was contained in the monthly report, tabled in Parliament on the operation of the Regional Development Act.
3,	4, and 5. This information is not presently available as this corporation is not required to report under any Act of Parliament.


Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion under the Regional Development Incentives Act authorized or provided an incentive grant or grants to Victor Woollen Products Limited and, if so, what is the amount of each grant?
2.	Who are the directors and executive officers of the company?
3.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
4.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and The Dominion Bureau of Statistics as follows: 1. This information was contained in the monthly report, tabled in Parliament on the operation of the Regional Development Act.

October 5, 1970
Questions
2.	The directors of Victor Woollen Products Limited as of December 31, 1969 were: Mr. Henri Duval, St. Victor Village, Cte Beauce, P.Q.; Mr. Patrice Duval, St. Victor Station, Cte Beauce, P.Q.; Mr. Victor Duval, St. Victor Station, Cte Beauce, P.Q.
The executive officers were: Mr. Henri Duval, Vice-President, St. Victor Village, Cte Beauce, P.Q.; Mr. Patrice Duval, President, St. Victor Station, Cte Beauce, P.Q.; Mr. Victor Duval, Secretaire, St. Victor Station, Cte Beauce, P.Q.
3.	Non-residents have no interest in the voting shares of the company either directly or through other corporations.
4.	None.


Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department oi Regional Economic Expansion under the Regional Development Incentives Act authorized or provided an Incentive grant or grants to Parkland Plastics Limited and, if so, what is the amount of each grant?
2.	Who are the directors and executive officers of the company?
3.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
4.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


James Alexander Jerome: See answer to Question No. 2,019 answered this day.


Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion under the Regional Development Incentives Act authorized or provided an incentive grant or grants to PRS Tarp Mfg., Co. and, if so, what is the amount of each grant?
2.	Who are the directors and executive officers of the company?
3.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
4.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


James Alexander Jerome: See answer to Question No. 2,019 answered this day.


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 2,023
Mr. Burton:: I.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion under the Regional Development Incentives Act authorized or provided an incentive grant [DOT]or grants to Newport Industries Limited and, if so, what is the amount of each grant?
.
2.	Who are the directors and executive officers of the company?
3.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
4.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


James Alexander Jerome: See answer to Question No. 2,019 answered this day.


Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion under the Regional Development Incentives Act authorized or provided an incentive grant or grants to Musquodoboit Lumber Company Limited and, if so, what is the amount of each grant?
2.	Who are the directors and executive officers of the company?
3.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
4.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics as follows: 1. This information was contained in the monthly report, tabled in Parliament on the operation of the Regional Development Act.
2.	The directors of the Musquodoboit Lumber Company Limited as of November 30, 1967 were: Mr. Jack Brown, Upper Musquodoboit, Halifax Co., N.S., Mr. Murray S. Prest, Mosseland, Halifax Co., N.S.; Mr. James B. Wilbur, 1770 Bloomingdale Terrace, Halifax, N.S. The executive officers were: Mr. Jack Brown, Treasurer, Upper Musquodoboit, Halifax Co., N.S.; Mr. Murray S. Prest, President, Mosseland, Halifax Co., N.S.; Mr. James B. Wilbur, Secretary, 1770 Bloomingdale Terrace, Halifax, N.S.
3.	Non-residents have no interest in the voting shares of the company either directly or through other holdings.
4.	None.


Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion under the Regional Development Incentives Act authorized or provided an incentive grant or grants to McMillan Press Limited and, if so, what is the amount of each grant?
October 5, 1970



2.	Who are the directors and executive officers of the company?
3.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
4.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics as follows: 1. This information was contained in the monthly report, tabled in Parliament on the operation of the Regional Development Act.
2.	The directors of McMillan Press Limited as of December 31, 1968 were: Mrs. Alice T. Alexander, 12 Buena Vista Ave., Saint John, N.B.; Mr. Robert T. Alexander, 10 Buena Vista Ave., Saint John, N.B.; Mr. Donald S. Barlow, 38 Alward St., Saint John, N.B.; Mr. Edwin A. Kennedy, 8 Queen Sq., Saint John, N.B.; Mr. Frank Perkins, Duke Street, Saint John, N.B. The executive officers were: Mrs. Alice T. Alexander, Vice-President, 12 Buena Vista Ave., Saint John, N.B.; Mr. Robert T. Alexander, President, 10 Buena Vista Ave., Saint John, N.B.; Mr. Donald S. Barlow, Secretary-Treasurer, 38 Alward St., Saint John, N.B.; Mr. Frank Perkins, Accountant, Duke Street, Saint John, N.B.
3.	Non-residents have no direct interest in the voting shares of the company. Moreover, no information is available on whether the intermediate company, McMillan Litho Ltd., has non-resident participation or not. This company was not required to file ownership information under the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act by virtue of its relatively small size.
4.	None.


Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion under the Regional Development Incentives Act authorized or provided an incentive grant or grants to C. M. McLean Limited and, if so, what is the amount of each grant?
2.	Who are the directors and executive officers of the company?
3.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
4.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Department of Regional Eco-
Questions
nomic Expansion and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics as follows: 1. This information was contained in the monthly report, tabled in Parliament on the operation of the Regional Development Act.
2.	The directors of C. M. McLean Limited as of December 31, 1968 were: Lois Hennessey, 51 Villa Avenue, Charlottetown, P.E.I.; C. M. McLean, Box 1111, Charlottetown, P.E.I.; C. Mitchell McLean, Box 1111, Charlottetown, P.E.I. The executive officers were: Lois Hennessey, Secretary-Treasurer, 51 Villa Avenue, Charlottetown, P.E.I.; C. M. McLean, President, Box 1111, Charlottetown, P.E.I.
3.	Non-residents have no interest in the voting shares of the company either directly or indirectly.
4.	None.


Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion under the Regional Development Incentives Act authorized or provided an incentive grant or grants to Mancana Industries Limited and, if so. what is the amount of each grant?
2.	Who are the directors and executive officers of the company?
3.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
4.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


James Alexander Jerome: See answer to Question No. 2,019 answered this day.


Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion under the Regional Development Incentives Act authorized or provided an incentive grant or grants to Lorette Mechanical Manufacturing Ltd. and, if so, what is the amount of each grant?
2.	Who are the directors and executive officers of the company?
3.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
4.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


James Alexander Jerome: See answer to Question No. 2,019 answered this day.

October 5, 1970
Questions


Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion under the Regional Development Incentives Act authorized or provided an incentive grant or grants to Insulated Products Limited and, if so, what is the amount of each grant?
2.	Who are the directors and executive officers of the company?
3.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
4.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


James Alexander Jerome: See answer to Question No. 2,019 answered this day.


Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion under the Regional Development Incentives Act authorized or provided an incentive grant or grants to Imprimerie des Cedres Inc. and, if so, what is the amount of each grant?
2.	Who are the directors and executive officers of the company?
3.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
4.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


James Alexander Jerome: See answer to question No. 2,019 answered this day.


Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion under the Regional Development Incentives Act authorized or provided an incentive grant or grants to Hawker Industries Limited and, if so, what is the amount of each grant?
2.	Who are the directors and executive officers of the company?
3.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
4.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


James Alexander Jerome: I am
informed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics as follows: 1. This information was contained in the monthly report, tabled in Parliament on the operation of the Regional Development Act.

2.	The directors of Hawker Industries Limited as at December 31, 1968, were: A. A. Baillie, 50 Sunnydene Crescent, Toronto, Ontario; T. J. Emmert, 500 Avenue Road, Toronto, Ontario; J. F. Howard, R.R. No. 2, Woodbridge, Ontario; D. G. Kettering, 67 Sir William's Lane, Islington, Ontario; W. D. Walker, 3 Hun thill Court, Islington, Ontario; The executive officers were: A. A. Baillie, VicePresident-Finance, 50 Sunnydene Crescent, Toronto, Ontario; I. E. Bull, Treasurer, 38 Brookfield Road, Willowdale, Ontario; T. J. Emmert, Chairman and President, 500 Avenue Road, Toronto, Ontario; J. H. Ready, Secretary, 2 Swindon Road, Islington, Ontario.
3.	Non-residents have a 57.5 per cent interest in the voting shares of the company.
4.	The majority of the voting shares is held by Hawker Siddeley Canada Ltd. The nonresident interest in this company resides primarily in the United Kingdom.
INCENTIVE GRANT TO H & R INDUSTRIES (DAUPHIN) LTD.


Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion under the Regional Development Incentives Act authorized or provided an incentive grant or grants to H & R Industries (Dauphin) Ltd. and, if so, what is the amount of each grant?
2.	Who are the directors and executive officers of the company?
3.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
4.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


James Alexander Jerome: See
answer to Question No. 2019 answered this day.


Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion under the Regional Development Incentives Act authorized or provided an incentive grant or grants to Fibre de Verre de l'Est Inc. and, if so, what is the amount of each grant?
2.	Who are the directors and executive officers of the company?
3.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
4.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


James Alexander Jerome: See
answer to Question No. 2,019 answered this day.
October 5, 1970

Questions
INCENTIVE GRANT TO FEDERAL PRODUCTS	INCENTIVE GRANT TO CHARCUTERIE LA
LIMITED	FERNANDIERE INC.


Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion under the Regional Development Incentives Act authorized or provided an incentive grant or grants to Federal Products Limited and, if so, what is the amount of each grant?
2.	Who are the directors and executive officers of the company?
3.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
4.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics as follows: 1. This information was contained in the monthly report, tabled in Parliament on the operation of the Regional Development Act.
2.	The directors of Federal Products Limited as of December 31, 1968, were: Mr. Charles
E.	Lewis, 50 Smith Ave., Truro, N.S.; Mrs. Marjorie A. Lewis, 50 Smith Ave., Truro, N.S.; Mr. R. Lome Macdougall, 128 Brunswick St., Truro, N.S.; The executive officers were: Mr. Charles E. Lewis, President, 50 Smith Ave., Truro, N.S.; Mrs. Marjorie A. Lewis, Vice-President, 50 Smith Ave., Truro, N.S.; Mr. R. Lome Macdougall, Secretary-Treasurer, 128 Brunswick St., Truro, N.S.
3.	Non-residents have no interest in the voting shares of the company either directly or through other holdings.
4.	None.
INCENTIVE GRANT TO CUSTOM PROFILE & PIPE EXTRUSION


Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion under the Regional Development Incentives Act authorized or provided an incentive grant or grants to Custom Profile & Pipe Extrusion and, if so, what is the amount of each grant?
2.	Who are the directors and executive officers of the company?
3.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
4.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


James Alexander Jerome: See answer to Question No. 2,019 answered this day.


Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion under the Regional Development Incentives Act authorized or provided an incentive grant or grants to Charcuterie la Fernandiere Inc. and, if so, what is the amount of each grant?
2.	Who are the directors and executive officers of the company?
3.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
4.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


James Alexander Jerome: See answer to Question No. 2,019 answered this day.


Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion under the Regional Development Incentives Act authorized or provided an incentive grant or grants to Bluebird Bakery Limited and, if so, what is the amount of each grant?
2.	Who are the directors and executive officers of the company?
3.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
4.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics as follows: 1. This information was contained in the monthly report tabled in Parliament on the operation of the Regional Development Act.
2.	The directors of Bluebird Bakery Limited as of August 31, 1969 were: Mrs. Evelina Bos-chetto, 11 Harry St., Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario; Mr. Ferruccio Boschetto, 11 Harry St., Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario; Mr. Edo Merini, 15 Arion Dr., Sault Ste. Marie, Ont. The executive officers were: Mrs. Evelina Boschetto, VicePresident, 11 Harry St., Sault Ste. Marie, Ont.; Mr. Ferruccio Boschetto, President, 11 Harry St., Sault Ste. Marie, Ont.; Mr. Richard Boschetto, Secretary-Treasurer, 108 Allard St., Sault Ste. Marie, Ont.
3.	Non-residents have no interest in the voting shares of the Company either directly or through other holdings.
4.	None.

October 5, 1970
Questions


Mr, Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion under the Regional Department Incentives Act authorized or provided an incentive grant or grants to Bestar Limitee and, if so, what is the amount of each grant?
2.	Who are the directors and executive officers of the company?
3.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
4.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


James Alexander Jerome: See answer to Question No. 2,019 answered this day.


Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion under the Regional Department Incentives Act authorized or provided an incentive grant or grants to Apalache Industries Limited and, if so, what is the amount of each grant?
2.	Who are the directors and executive officers of the company?
3.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
4.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


James Alexander Jerome: See answer to Question No. 2,019 answered this day.


Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion under the Regional Department Incentives Act authorized or provided an incentive grant or grants to Apalache Industries Limited and, if so. what is the amount of each grant?
2.	Who are the directors and executive officers of the company?
3.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
4.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


James Alexander Jerome: See answer to Question No. 2,019 answered this day.


Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion under the Regional Development Incen-

tives Act authorized or provided an incentive grant or grants to Triple E. Motor Homes Ltd. and, if so, what is the amount of each grant?
2.	Who are the directors and executive officers of the company?
3.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
4.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


James Alexander Jerome: See answer to Question No. 2,019 answered this day.


Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion under the Regional Development Incentives Act authorized or provided an incentive grant or grants to Rembourrage Industriel Kebec Inc. and, if so, what is the amount of each grant?
2.	Who are the directors and executive officers of the company?
3.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
4.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


James Alexander Jerome: See answer to Question No. 2,019 answered this day.


Mr. Brewin: 1.	What guidelines do customs officers have to determine if they have grounds to seize books, prints, printed paper, drawings, paintings, photographs or representations of any kind which are of a treasonable or seditious nature or of an immoral or indecent character?
2.	What guidelines are used by the authorities in the Department of National Revenue to determine whether the books, prints, printed paper, drawings, paintings, photographs or representations of any kind are treasonable or seditious or of immoral or indecent character?
3.	Does the Department of National Revenue keep a record of the specific publications prohibited under Item 99201-1, Schedule C of the Customs Tariff?
4.	What are the qualifications and the rank or Public Service classification of those officials of the Department of National Revenue involved in deciding whether material should be prohibited entry under Item 99201-1?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: 1. Material is not seized by Customs officers at the time of entry but is detained for further examination. The basic guideline is the Tariff Item itself (99201-1) supple-
October 5, 1970

merited by internal instructions to port officers. These instructions are based on court decisions under the Customs Tariff Act and under corresponding sections of the Criminal Code. Where a Customs officer considers the material comes within the Tariff Item, it is referred to headquarters for decision.
2.	Headquarters is guided by the definitions contained in the related sections of the Ci-minal Code and court judgments which have been made under those sections and under the Customs Tariff Act.
3.	The ordinary filing system is maintained for all items forwarded and reviewed at headquarters. No separate list of material prohibited under the Tariff item is maintained nor does the department issue such a list.
4.	The decisions are made by persons classified as senior executive officers possessing qualifications in accordance with the established standards.


Mr. Coates: Has the government given consideration to requesting the National Research Council to undertake the project involving the information provided in the report submitted by the Atlantic Tidal Power Programming Board that would result in the development of a miniature environment, geographically identical to that studied by the Board that would allow the National Research Council to experiment with the Tidal Power Schemes under investigation by the Board as well as the comparison of alternative schemes and if such a request has not been made to the National Research Council, will the government give consideration to making such a request to that Council?


Barnett Jerome Danson: The Government has not given consideration to requesting the National Research Council to undertake experiments on Tidal Power schemes. It does not intend to do so unless new factors arise which change the circumstances referred to in the report of the Board set up jointly by the Governments of Canada, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia which concluded that "Economic development of tidal power in the Bay of Fundy is not feasible under prevailing circumstances".


Mr. Coates: Is the government considering any action that would result in the removal of ponies from Sable Island and, if so, what actions are contemplated and for what reason?
Questions


Gérard Duquet: No.


Mr. Rowland: Is the government developing a contingency plan designed to reduce or eliminate the effects of economic and social dislocation upon the Interlake Region of Manitoba should the processing plant of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation be relocated and, if so, will the appropriate Minister undertake to make a statement on motions informing the House of the nature of the plan once it has been developed?


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration: Mr. Speaker, the Department of
Fisheries and Forestry and the Department of Manpower and Immigration inform that no economic or social dislocation as a result of any relocation of fish processing plant is foreseen for the interlake region of Manitoba.
The Department of Fisheries and Forestry is actively studying proposals for collaborating with the provincial government of Manitoba in various measures designed to counter the decline in yield in recent years of the commercial fishery in the large southern Manitoba lakes. The objective is to achieve better long term use of the resources available to the advantage of the interlake region of the province. Appropriate announcements will be made as soon as practicable.
The Department of Manpower and Immigration, with other federal and provincial agencies, is continuing its considerable efforts to assist the residents of the interlake region. This department provides, amongst other services, occupational counselling, selection and referral to employment, occupational training and upgrading with income replacement allowances, and financial mobility assistance.


Mr. McGrath: What was the gross income and operating expenses for the past fiscal year of the ferry John Guy between Bell Island and Portugal Cove, Newfoundland?


Gérard Duquet: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: Under Section 390 of the Railway Act, the information requested is privileged.

October 5, 1970
Questions


Mr. McGrath: 1.	What is the value of the contract for mail service between Bell Island and Portugal Cove, Newfoundland?
2.	Who is the holder of this contract?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: 1. $7,585.43 per annum.
2. Mr. Robert Hussey.


Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of the Secretary of State have the use of a computer in its operations and, if so, to what extent is it utilized?
2.	Is the computer programmed 24 hours per day and, if not, for what reason?
3.	What is the number of hours planned for utilization of the computer?
4.	What has been the annual cost of computer services for each year 1960 to 1970 inclusive?
5.	How many programmes are in preparation for the computer at the present time and how will each affect the efficiency of the Department?


Gérard Pelletier: 1.	The Department of the Secretary of State utilizes the services of the computer equipment of Central Accounting Division of the Department of Supply and Services, for the purpose of compiling financial reports and records. The information provided is also used by Fiscal Accounting Division and Dominion Bureau of Statistics.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	The cost of this service is borne by the Department of Supply and Services.
5.	One programme is presently being run for financial reports. The information provided allows the staff of the department to prepare meaningful reports to management regarding current financial trends and assists in forecasting future requirements. It also enables speedier reconciliation of departmental records with those of Central Accounting Division and Fiscal Accounting Division of the Department of Supply and the Department of Supply and Services.
(Mr. Duquet.]


Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of the Secretary of State have data processing equipment (automatic) and, if so, for how long?
2.	What was the initial cost of the equipment?
3.	What yearly costs are anticipated for data processing in the Department?


Gérard Pelletier: 1.	No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


Mr. Gleave: Of the 48 Farm Credit Corporation Loans to Indian farmers in Canada (a) how many individuals in each province received such loans (b) what was the amount of each loan to each individual (c) what was the purpose for which each loan was made?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The Farm Credit Corporation advises that: (a) Loans were made as follows: to individual operators, B.C. seven; Alberta, four; Saskatchewan, fifteen; Manitoba, seven; Ontario, three; Quebec, one. To two operators on same farm, Alberta, two; Saskatchewan, one; Manitoba, one. To three operators on same farm, B.C., one; Alberta, two; Ontario, one. In Manitoba, a loan was made to a farm having four operators and to another having five operators. In Alberta, a loan was made to a Band carrying on farming operations, (b) and (c) These matters are considered by the Farm Credit Corporation to be confidential between lender and borrower, whether on or off reserves. However, of the total amount of $933,700 approved to March 31, 1970, the purposes were as follows: breeding stock, 25 per cent; farm equipment, 22.6 per cent; buildings, 13.2 per cent; other improvements, 3.7 per cent; debt consolidation, 32.6 per cent; miscellaneous, including loan costs, 2.9 per cent.


Mr. Gleave: 1.	On which particular Indian Reserves has Anderson Drilling of Assiniboia, Saskatchewan contracted to bore and develop large diameter shallow wells?
October 5, 1970

2.	How many wells have they contracted to develop in each case?


J. Judd Buchanan: 1. and 2. The following is a listing of Indian Reserves in Saskatchewan indicating the number of wells being drilled by Anderson Drilling of Assiniboia, Saskatchewan.
Indian Reserves	No. of Wc
Littlepine	9
Moosomin	5
Poundmaker	7
Red Pheasant	7
Mosquito	5
Sweetgrass	7
Thunderchild	8
Salteaux	4
Onion Lake	14
Water Hen	4
Ministikwan	3
Mudie Lake	3
Bighead	2
Meadow Lake	4
Little Red River	3
Denare Beach	3
Sturgeon Lake	3
Sioux Wahpaton	3
Big River	8
James Smith	8
Moose Woods	3
Piapot	4
Muscowpetung	2
Peepeekisis	5
Okanese	2
Starblanket	3
Little Black Bear	2
Wood Mountain	2
Gordons	4
Poorman	4
Day Star	1
Muskowekwan	6
Fishing Lake	2
Nut Lake	2
Kinistino	1
Total 35	153


Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce have data processing equipment (automatic) and, if so, for how long?
2.	What was the initial cost of the equipment?
3.	What yearly costs are anticipated for data processing in the Department?
Questions


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1. Yes, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has rented data processing equipment (automatic) since the formation of the Department, April 1, 1969.
2.	The rental cost in fiscal year 1969-70 was $114,997.13.
3.	The Department is now conducting a comprehensive study to determine its future requirements for computer services. Consequently a firm answer cannot be given at this time.


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 2,059
Mr. Broadbent:: Has there been any grant, loan or other form of financial assistance within the past five years by any department of the Government of Canada to Mallette-Roy Mills Limited or a company of a similar name in the vicinity of Timmins, Ontario?


James Alexander Jerome: Yes. The Department of Regional Economic Expansion.


Mr. Fortin: 1.	Is consideration being given to amending the tax structure regarding alcoholic beverages in Canada?
2.	Have briefs been sent or representations made to amend this tax structure and, if so, by whom?
3.	For each of the past ten years, what have been the revenues from federal taxation on alcoholic beverages?


James Alexander Jerome: I am
informed by the Department of Finance and the Department of National Revenue as follows: 1. This is a matter of government policy. If the government should decide to propose an amendment to change the taxation of alcoholic beverages it would be announced at the appropriate time.
2.	Yes, during 1970 from January 1 to June 17 one brief was received. It was sub-mited by the Association of Canadian Distillers.
3.	See reply to part 1 of Question No. 1,999.
Questions


[Stage Direction]
October 5, 1970
Mrs. Maclnnis: 1.	How many letters were received by the Minister of Justice during the period May 1 to June 15, 1970 (a) in favour of liberalizing laws in relation to abortion (b) opposed to liberalizing laws in relation to abortion?
2.	What is the estimated number of illegal abortions performed in Canada during the fiscal year 1969-70?
3.	How many registered physicians have been brought to trial during the fiscal year 1969-70 on charges involving abortion?
4.	How many physicians have been convicted and what have been the penalties imposed in each case?


James Alexander Jerome: I am
informed by the Department of Justice and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics as follows:
1.	(a) 35; (b) 20.
2.	The Dominion Bureau of Statistics cannot estimate the number of illegal abortions performed in Canada as statistics are not collected on this. However, the following information is available, but not for the 1969-70 fiscal year: (i) The number of deaths in which the underlying cause was abortion, (ii) The number of cases for which abortion was given as the primary reason for care in hospitals (not broken down into spontaneous and induced abortions) (iii) The number of convictions in Canadian courts for abortions and attempted abortions.
3.	and 4. Information not available.


Mr. Gauthier: 1.	(a) What quantity of butter was imported into Canada in 1969 and from which countries (b) what quantity was imported during the first two quarters of 1970?
2.	What quantity of powdered milk was imported into Canada in 1968, 1969, 1970, to date and from which countries?
3.	What quantity of margarine entered Canada in 1968 and 1969?
4.	How many eggs did Canada import from the United States in 1968 and 1969?
5.	How many hogs were imported into Canada in 1968 and 1969?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Total
(Lb.)
315,883
4,575,031
4,890,914
Greece
Sweden

Total
(Lb.)
6,570
386,068
5,042,960
5,435,598

October 5, 1970

Questions
4.	Imports from the United States of eggs in the shell amounted to 8,419,559 doz. in 1968 and 8,699,687 doz. in 1969.
5.	Statistics on the import of hogs are listed under category 3-49, "Swine". Imports as recorded in this class for 1968 and 1969 are shown below:
Swine (class 3-49)
1968	(No.)	1969 (No.)	U.K.	9	U.K.	55U.S.	757	U.S.	4,707Total [English]	766	Total	4,762


Mr. Godin: 1.	During the past year, has the government called tenders for the construction of a building to be rented as a post office in l'Ancienne-Lorette, Quebec and, if so, how many tenders were received?
2.	What are the names and the addresses of the tenderers?
3.	What was the respective amount of each tender and who was the successful tenderer?


Arthur Laing: 1. Yes. One tender was received after two tender calls.
2.	Tremblay & Beausejour, 1106 Avenue Dijon, Quebec 10, Que.
3.	$4.22 per square foot per annum for a 15-year period. The tender was accepted.


USE OF COMPUTER-DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Robinson: 1. Does the Department of External Affairs have the use of a computer in its operations and, if so, to what extent is it utilized?
2 Is the computer programmed 24 hours per day and, if not, for what reason?
3.	What is the number of hours planned for utilization of the computer?
4.	What has been the annual cost of computer services for each year 1960 to 1970 inclusive?
5.	How many programmes are in preparation for the computer at the present time and how will each affect the efficiency of the Department?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. Yes. The computer of the Department of Supply and Services is used for the production of various financial statements including cash and budgetary reports. The extent of utilization is unknown.
2 and 3. Unknown, as the computer is under the administrative control of the Department of Supply and Services.
4.	Nil, having been provided free of charge by the Department of Supply and Services.
5.	In addition to the annual revision of accounting programs, two others are in preparation at the present time. These are designed to impove administrative and operational efficiency and pertain to: (A) The distribution and custodial inventories of equipment on all premises owned and leased by the Department. (B) The storage and retrieval of information concerning local and international matters which are of interest to the Department.


Mr. Fortin: 1.	In each of the past ten years, and in each province, how many alcoholics were there in Canada?
2.	In each of the past ten years, and in each province, how many gallons of illegally produced alcoholic beverages were seized?


James Alexander Jerome: 1. Information not available.
2. As per Annex A following.


[Stage Direction]
Fiscal Year	Nfld.	P.E.I.	N.S.	N.B.	P.Q.	Ont.	Man.	Sask.	Alta.	B.C.	N.W.T.	Total1960-61	.. 0	17	92	13	5,282	225	242	254	12	47	0	6,1841961-62	.. 20	86	49	1	3,987	687	340	110	91	9	0	5,3801962-63	. . 1	29	60	77	3,417	765	743	81	28	34	0	5,2351963-64	.. 1	18	38	10	5,211	2,312	296	59	29	70	0	8,0441964-65	.. 1	9	32	0	6,467	335	177	106	87	72	0	7,2861965-66	.. 3	4	9	2	4,942	366	347	47	62	32	0	5,8141966-67	.. 1	7	35	1	5,221	212	683	72	17	44	1	6,2941967-68	.. 1	3	3	0	2,851	498	356	69	2	116	0	2,9991968-69	.. 1	4	36	11	4,292	198	411	55	14	100	0	5,1221969-70	. . 8	5	29	9	7,016	642	420	59	6	96	0	8,290Total	.. 37	182	383	124	48,686	6,240	4,015	912	348	620	1	61,548
Note: The statistics quoted herein do not include minor seizures of less than one gallon which are disposed of under Provincial Liquor Acts.
[Stage Direction]
October 5, 1970
Questions
Mr. Coates: 1.	What position does Gilles Bergeron hold in the Department of Communications, how long has he been associated with the Public Service of Canada, how long has he been in his present position, what are his qualifications and what is his present salary?
2.	Is Mr. Bergeron bilingual, is work in his Department carried out in a bilingual manner and has he, at any time, refused to accept interdepartmental communications in the English language?
3.	What facilities are available in the Department of Communications for the translation of Departmental business into English and French, and what is the annual cost of securing translation from English to French by private contractors outside the government service?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Department of Communications and by the Department of the Secretary of State as follows: 1. Mr. Bergeron holds the position of Assistant Deputy Minister (Operations) in the Department of Communications. His association with the Public Service dates from 1967 and he assumed his present position on March 10, 1969. Mr. Bergeron was Associate Commissioner, Centennial Commission (Secretary of State) in 1967 and Manager, Project Office for Domestic Satellite Communication Systems (Privy Council) in 1968. From 1963-66 he served as Assistant Deputy Minister in the Quebec Department of Education. Previously his experience was as an Administrative Consultant with the Quebec Government. He holds a Bachelors of Arts, University of Paris, Bachelor of Applied Science, University of Montreal and Master of Applied Science, University of Toronto. He is paid a salary in the range of SX 3, $23,000 to $29,000.
2.	Mr. Bergeron is bilingual. Work in his department is carried out in a bilingual manner, and he has never refused to accept interdepartmental communications in the English language.
3.	The Department of Communications is served by the Translation Bureau, Department of the Secretary of State, through a Translation Division comprised of three translators and one secretary working with the Department. For the fiscal year April 1, 1969 to March 31, 1970, the Translation Bureau secured translations from English to French for the Department of Communications from free-lance translators outside the Government service at a total cost of $1,361.90.
[Mr. Jerome.)


Mr. Coates: Is Mrs. Gilles Bergeron an employee of the Canadian Radio-Television Commission and, if so. what are her qualifications for the position she holds and what is her annual salary?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canadian Radio-Television Commission as follows: Mrs. Gilles Bergeron is not an employee of the CRTC. She is engaged on contract four days a week to work on a temporary assignment. Mrs. Bergeron holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Paris, a Bachelor of Psychology degree from the University of Montreal and has ten years' experience in the audio-visual field. Mrs. Bergeron is paid $60 a day.


Mr. Kaplan: How much interest income has the government lost from January 1, 1970 to date through holding part of its foreign reserves in gold, considering the investment of such part at the average yield upon the balance of the reserves?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Gold is held in the Exchange Fund Account to be available to purchase U.S. dollars should they be needed for intervention in the foregin currency market to protect the Canadian dollar. Because this gold earns no interest, it has been a matter of policy only to hold a certain proportion of Canada's foreign exchange reserves in this form.
The average yield of the Exchange Fund Account's investment portfolio-excluding gold and the obligations of the IMF-for the year 1969 was 5.85 per cent. The exact figure for the first quarter of 1970 is not yet available. Applied to the gold holdings as of 31 May 1970, interest income foregone during 1970, at the yed applicable in 1969 on other assets, could be said to have approximated $21 million.


Mr. Robinson: 1. Does the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs have the use of a computer in its operations and, if so, to what extent is it utilized?
October 5, 1970

2.	Is the computer programmed 24 hours per day and, if not for what reason?
3.	What is the number of hours planned for utilization of the computer?
4.	What has been the annual cost of computer services for each year 1960 to 1970 inclusive?
5.	How many programs are in preparation for the computer at the present time and how will each affect the efficiency of the Department?


Stanley Ronald Basford: 1. No.
2.	N/A.
3.	N/A.
4.	N/A.
5.	No specific programs are in preparation at this time but feasibility studies concerning the possible use of computer services for several functions of the Department are in progress.


Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of Justice have the use of a computer in its operations and, if so, to what extent is it utilized?
2.	Is the computer programmed 24 hours per day and, if not for what reason?
3.	What is the number of hours planned for utilization of the computer?
4.	What has been the annual cost of computer services for each year 1960 to 1970 inclusive?
5.	How many programmes are in preparation for the computer at the present time and how will each affect the efficiency of the Department?


John Napier Turner: 1. The Department of Justice shares on a time cost basis the computers of the Canadian Government Printing Bureau, and the Computer Services Bureau, and benefits from certain programmes run by various other federal departments and Canadian universities.
The CSB and CGPB computers are being used by the Statute Revision Commission in order to place the Revised Statutes of Canada on machine readable tape for the purposes of achieving a more up-to-date printing process. The CSB and CGPB computers are being used in the development of the CADEPOL (computer assisted drafting, editing and publishing of legislation) program. The Central Divorce Registry operations use the CSB computer.
The Department receives print outs and other computer outputs for such operations as pay cheques, accommodation and personnel requirement forecasts and PPBS guidelines from various other federal departments. As
Questions
well, the Department of Justice is participating in the development of jurimetries in Canada, but this development work is done on university computers.
2	and 3. The Department of Justice does not control a computer and therefore these questions do not apply.
4.	The departmental vote for time-costs for the use of CSB and CGPB computers has been
(Apr. 1/69-Mar. 31/70) 1969-70 $ 80,052.00 1968-69	26,670.01
before 1968 if any none


[Stage Direction]
5.	The only programs in preparation are the above-mentioned computerized Revised Statutes of Canada printing and CADEPOL.
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of Justice have data processing equipment (automatic) and, if so, for how long?
2.	What was the initial cost of the equipment?
3	What yearly costs are anticipated for data processing in the Department?


John Napier Turner: 1. The Department of Justice does not have any automated data processing equipment as such. The Department does have one IBM 026 key punch and one IBM 2741 terminal which in themselves do not process data.
2.	This question does not apply.
3.	The answer here is the same as above.


USE OF DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT-DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of External Affairs have data processing equipment (automatic) and, if so, for how long?
2.	What was the initial cost of the equipment?
3.	What yearly costs are anticipated for data processing in the Department?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Various systems studies in progress strongly imply a role for automatic data processing in the Department and annual expenses for such equipment are estimated at an average of $300,000 on a five year period.

October 5, 1970
Questions


Mr. Moores: 1.	How many ships are currently in commission in the Canadian Forces (Sea)?
2.	What are the names, types, classes and hull numbers of these ships?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As of June 30, 1970:
1.	39.
2.
Name
HMCS Bonaventure Cape Scott Provider Protecteur Ojibwa Onondaga Okanagan Rainbow Annapolis Nipigon Mackenzie Qu'Appelle Saskatchewan Yukon Chaudiere Columbia Restigouche St. Croix Terra Nova St. Laurent Saguenay Skeena Ottawa Margaree Fraser Assiniboine Granby Chaleur Chignecto Cowichan Fundy Miramichi Thunder Porte de la Reine Porte Quebec Porte St. Jean Porte St. Louis Bras d'Or Oriole
Type
Light A/S Aircraft Carrier
Escort Maintenance Ship
Operational Support Ship
Operational Support Ship
Submarine
Submarine
Submarine
Submarine
Helicopter Destroyer Escort Helicopter Destroyer Escort Destroyer Escort Destroyer Escort Destroyer Escort Destroyer Escort Destroyer Escort Destroyer Escort Destroyer Escort Destroyer Escort Destroyer Escort Helicopter Destroyer Escort Helicopter Destroyer Escort Helicopter Destroyer Escort Helicopter Destroyer Escort Helicopter Destroyer Escort Helicopter Destroyer Escort Helicopter Destroyer Escort Diving Depot Ship Coastal Minesweeper Coastal Minesweeper Coastal Minesweeper Coastal Minesweeper Coastal Minesweeper Coastal Minesweeper Gate Vessel Gate Vessel Gate Vessel Gate Vessel Fast Hydrofoil Escort Training Yacht
Class	Number
Modified Majestic	22
Cape	101
Provider	508
Improved Provider	509
"O"	72
"O"	73
"O"	74
Tench	75
Annapolis	265
Annapolis	266
Mackenzie	261
Mackenzie	264
Mackenzie	262
Mackenzie	263
Restigouche	235
Restigouche	260
Restigouche	257
Restigouche	256
Restigouche	259
St. Laurent	205
St. Laurent	206
St. Laurent	207
St. Laurent	229
St. Laurent	230
St. Laurent	233
St. Laurent	234
Prestonian Frigate	320
Bay	164
Bay	160
Bay	162
Bay	159
Bay	163
Bay	161
Porte	184
Porte	185
Porte	180
Porte	183
	400
Ketch	QW 3.


Mr. Moores: 1.	How many people are currently receiving assistance under the Canada Assistance Plan in (a) the constituency of Bonavista-Trinity-Conception (b) the Province of Newfoundland?
2.	(a) How much money was paid out under the Canada Assistance Plan to residents of the Province of Newfoundland during 1969, and (b) what is the estimate for 1970?

3.	How many residents of the Province of Newfoundland are currently receiving the Old Age Pension?
4.	How many residents of the Province of Newfoundland are currently receiving assistance and the Old Age Assistance Plan?


John Carr Munro: 1. (a) Statistics are not compiled on the basis of federal constituencies. However, it is estimated that in March,
October 5. 1970	COMMONS
1970, 13,731 persons in Bonavista-Trinity-Conception were in receipt of assistance shareable under the Canada Assistance Plan. This figure includes 6,844 long-term and 6,887 short-term recipients, (b) As of May, 1970, the total number of persons in receipt of assistance was 87,294 of whom 47,075 were long-term and 40,219 were short-term recipients. In the long-term group there were 9,697 family units and 5,575 single person units. In the short-term group there were 6,658 family units and 1,034 single person units.
2.	(a) Federal payments to Newfoundland under the Canada Assistance Plan amounted to $20,289,000 for the fiscal year 1969-70. (b) Estimated federal expenditures under the Plan for the fiscal year 1970-71 are $22,966,000.
3.	31,619 as of April 30, 1970.
4.	Persons 65 years of age and over who were formerly granted assistance under the Old Age Security Act are now receiving pensions under the Old Age Security Act.


Mr. Robinson: 1. Does the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs have data processing equipment (automatic) and, if so, for how long?
DEBATES	8747
Questions
2.	What was the initial cost of the equipment?
3.	What yearly costs are anticipated for data processing in the Department?


Stanley Ronald Basford: 1. Yes. From January 1, 1970. The equipment is an IBM 6430
System.
2.	As this equipment is being rented, there was no initial capital outlay on it.
3.	Expected yearly operating costs for this equipment are for rental fees ($10,800); punch cards ($400) and paper ($200) for a total estimated cost of $11,400. In addition the Director of Investigation and Research rents time on the IBM 360 System, Model 65, operated by the Computer Services Bureau. It is estimated that the yearly expense will be $2,800.


Mr. Robinson: How was the money allocated by the Fitness and Amateur Sports Council for Boxing actually spent?


John Carr Munro: Monies granted to the Canadian Amateur Boxing Association was allocated as follows:
Year	Amount $	Event1962/63	1,000	International Championships1962/63	3,377	Pan. Am. Trials1962/63	3,092	National Championships1963/64	3,602	National Championships1964/65	5,846	National Championships1965/66	5,470	Coaching Clinics1965/66	5,381	National Championships1966/67	4,041	National Championships1966/67	3,004	Pre. B.E.G. Training1969/70	6,850	Re-organization Conference1969/70	1,500	Officials to attend National Championships1970/71	20,000	Supervision and control of amateur boxing in
Canada
From the year 1962/63 to 1966/67 inclusive a grant of $500 was awarded each year to help defray the administration costs.

October 5, 1970
Questions
FITNESS AND amateur SPORT PROGRAM-	Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 2,084-Mr. Robinson:	Health and Welfare): During the fiscal year
What was the per capita allotment made to each 1969-70 the per capita allotment was as of the provinces and territories of Canada under the Fitness and Amateur Sport programme?	follows:
Province	Basic Allotment	Allotment per capita	Total Allocation$	$	$Nfld.	35,000	14,181	49,181P.E.I.	35,000	3,047	38,047N.S.	35,000	21,134	56,134N.B.	35,000	17,339	52,339Quebec	35,000	165,137	200,137Ontario	35,000	204,745	239,745Manitoba	35,000	27,033	62,033Saskatchewan	35,000	26,618	61,618Alberta	35,000	42,849	77,849B.C.	35,000	56,643	91,643N.W.T.	35,000	859	35,859Yukon	35,000	415	35,415Total	$ 420,000	$ 580,000	$ 1,000,000
Mr. Robinson: Does OXFAM have any influence on the federal government's Rhodesian policy and, if so, to what effect?


Mitchell William Sharp: Although this organization has no specifically identifiable influence on the government's Rhodesia policy, the government, of course, is prepared to listen to the views of this or any other organization interested in international affairs.


Mr. Robinson: For each year 1950 to 1970 inclusive, what was the average consumer interest rate for (a) automobiles, including cars and trucks (b) farm machinery (c) appliances, generally i.e., toasters, vacuum cleaners, etc. (d) tractors (e) boats (pleasure craft and fishing) (f) stoves (g) refrigerators (h) air-conditioning equipment (i) hot water tanks and heaters (j) oil and/or gas furnaces (k) automotive accessories (1) radios and TV sets (m) electrical fixtures (n) aluminum storms and screens (o) prefabricated dwellings such as houses, cottages, garages, outbuildings, boat houses, etc. (p) plumbing fixtures and equipment (q) furniture (home and office) (r) broadloom, drapes, rugs, etc. (s) typewriters, adding machines and office business equipment (t) machines and business equipment generally (u) houses?


Edgar John Benson: The interest rates asked for in this question are not subject to statutory limitations. Consequently, they may vary from region to region and from merchant to merchant. No information exists in the Department of Insurance that would enable average interest rates to be determined for the various categories specified.


Mr. Robinson: What was the average interest rate charged by
(a)	finance companies (b) credit unions (c) banks, to consumers for each year 1940 to 1970 inclusive?


Edgar John Benson: (a) Interest rates charged by finance companies are not subject to maximum limitation except as respects loans subject to the Small Loans Act. That Act applied to loans of $500 or less from 1940 to 1956 and applies to loans of $1,500 or less from 1956 to the present time. From 1940 to 1956 the maximum interest rate that could be charged on loans subject to the Act was 2 per cent a month. From 1956 to the present date the maximum interest rate that may be charged is 2 per cent a month on the first $300 of a loan, 1 per cent on the portion of any loan between $300 and $1,000 and i of 1 per cent
October 5, 1970

on the portion of any loan between $1,000 and $1,500. From time to time some companies have charged less than the maximum permitted but the general pattern is for companies licensed under the Small Loans Act to charge the maximum rates permitted, (b) The interest rate that credit unions may charge is established pursuant to provincial legislation in each province. The usual pattern is to fix a maximum interest rate of 1 per cent a month but many credit unions charge less. No information is available in this Department that would permit an average to be calculated, (c) To be answered elsewhere.


Mr. Robinson: 1.	Has the federal government and/or any government agency provided funds or grants to either Cranford Pratt or Clyde Sanger to write, edit or publish any material of any kind and, if so, what and how much was paid and what was the nature of the material?
2.	Does the federal government have any contract of any kind with either Cranford Pratt or Clyde Sanger to perform a service for the federal government?


James Alexander Jerome: 1. No.
However, the Department of External Affairs invited Professor Cranford Pratt to give a lecture on Foreign Policy and in connection therewith absorbed travelling, transportation and living expenses amounting to $94.
2. The Canadian International Development Agency has or has recently had contracts with Cranford Pratt and Clyde Sanger for the performance of service. These contracts are listed hereunder:	(1) Cranford
Pratt: (a) Contract dated April 1, 1969, to collect data for and prepare a preliminary report on the desirability and feasibility of a Canadian sponsored program of third country training with Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda for the lump sum amount of $1,250, plus $301.13 in travel expenses. Mr. Pratt was already in Africa when this contract was entered into, (b) Contract for two months from April 1, 1970 to May 30, 1970 to study the feasibility of project grants to Canadian universities and colleges as part of CIDA's non-Government organization program and to make recommendations with respect to types of projects, criteria for project grants, and basis of financing projects, at $100 per day for 17 days ($1,700 in fees), plus $487.59 in travel expenses. (2) Clyde
Questions
Sanger: Contract for one year from September 1, 1970 with Mr. Sanger to act as special adviser on communications to CIDA at the fee of $18,000 per annum. This will entail the carrying out of research, the preparation of materials and the provision of advice and assistance.


Mr. Robinson: 1.	Are Messrs. Cranford Pratt and Clyde Sanger the experts advising the Canadian Government on Rhodesia, and (a) if not, who are the experts (b) if so, what is their background and knowledge on this subject and how long has each resided in Rhosedia?
2.	Have either Mr. Pratt or Mr. Sanger prepared any fact or information material for the federal government and, if so, to what extent?
3.	How many articles, periodicals, books, etc. about Rhodesia have been written either in full or in part by either Mr. Pratt or Mr. Sanger?


James Alexander Jerome: 1. No.
The Government draws advice on this subject from its own officials and from a wide variety of sources in Canada and abroad, including other governments, international organizations and any individuals who offer information and opinions.
2.	Professor Pratt is one of a number of Canadian academics who have been invited to discuss developments in various parts of the world with officials of the Canadian Government.
CIDA entered into a contract with Mr. Pratt on April 1, 1969 to collect data for and prepare a preliminary report on the desirability and feasibility of a Canadian sponsored program of third country training with Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda. It also entered into a contract with him for two months from April 1, 1970 to May 30, 1970, to study the feasibility of project grants to Canadian universities and colleges as part of CIDA's non-Government organization program and to make recommendations with special reference to types of projects, criteria and project grants, and basis of financing projects. As to Mr. Sanger, a contract has been entered into with him for a term of one year from September 1, 1970 to act as special adviser on communications. This will entail the carrying out of research, the preparation of material, and the provision of advice and assistance.
3.	This information is not available to the Government.

October 5, 1970
Orders for Returns QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many departments have a Parliamentary Returns Branch and what is the number on staff in each department providing this service?
2.	How many departments do not have a Parliamentary Returns Branch and, in each case, for what reasons are such Branches not required?
3.	How many departments have officers doing Parliamentary Returns work as part of their duties?
Return tabled.


Mr. Orlikow: For each government department, Crown corporation or agency, what was the salary range of the Deputy Minister and Assistant Deputy Minister or the equivalent position, as of January 1, 1957, 1962, 1967, 1969?
Return tabled.


Mr. Beaudoin: For each project or undertaking in which the federal government participated financially since 1965 in constituency of Richmond (a) what was the nature of the project or undertaking (b) what was the amount invested by the federal government in each project or undertaking (c) what was the amount invested by the provincial government in each project or undertaking (d) were other amounts invested and, if so (i) what was the amount (ii) who made the investment?
Return tabled.


Mr. Maiie: 1.	What is the total number of federal public servants?
2.	How many of these public servants come from Quebec?
3.	How many of these public servants are bilingual?
4.	How many of these public servants are French-Canadian?
5.	How many of these public servants are working (a) in Quebec (b) in each of the other provinces?
Return tabled.


Mr. Howard (Skeena): Since January 1, 1965, have any fees or remuneration been paid to (a) lawyers (b) persons other than lawyers for opinions and/or action arising out of, or related to, any activity pursuant to the Combines Investigation Act and, if so, what are the names and addresses of each such lawyer or other person, the amount of money paid to each and the type of service rendered in each instance with the applicable dates?
Return tabled.


Mr. Robinson: 1 What research studies have been carried out by, or on behalf of, the Department of Manpower and Immigration during each year 1960 to 1969 inclusive?
2.	What research studies are presently being carried on and/or are contemplated during the next five years?
3.	What was the cost of each of the research studies completed in each year 1960 to 1969 inclusive?
4.	What is the estimated cost of each of the studies presently in being or contemplated during the next five years?
Return tabled.


Mr. Robinson: How many consultants have been engaged by the Department of Fisheries and Forestry during each year 1950 to 1970 inclusive (a) what was the cost of the consultants (b) how were the consultants utilized (c) for what reasons were the consultants necessary?
Return tabled.


Mr. Lambert (Belle-chasse): What amounts did the federal government pay to the Quebec Government under shared-cost programmes for the years 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70?
Return tabled.


Mr. Skoreyko: 1.	How many grants have been approved, to date, by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and on what basis under the terms
October 5, 1970

of the old Area Development Incentives Act or under other legislation?
2.	What is the name, the proposed location and the type of industry or other commercial enterprise to which grants were extended and what was the amount involved in each case and in total?
3.	How many applications for grants have been rejected by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, to date, and what were the types of business enterprise and place of proposed location involved in such unsuccessful applications?
4.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion any plans to extend or alter the boundaries of the area currently designated as eligible for grants?
Return tabled.


Mr. Mather: 1.	How many free parking spaces does each department, Crown corporation or agency of the government provide for its employees in the National Capital Region?
2.	How many parking spaces are provided by each department, agency or Crown corporation that are paid for by employees?
3. What criteria are used in allocating free parking spaces by each department?
4.	Does the Government of Canada subsidize public transportation in the City of Ottawa in any way?
5.	Does the government subsidize employees who use public transportation?
6.	Does the government have any plans to subsidize public transportation in cities where they have employees?
7.	Has the National Capital Commission estimated the cost of free parking spaces provided by government departments and, if so, what is the cost?
Return tabled.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breion-The Sydneys): 1.	What are the names of individuals who have been retained by government departments in the Province of Nova Scotia since June 25, 1968, for the purpose of securing legal services and, in each instance (a) what is the name of the firm that individual is associated with (b) where is that firm located?
2.	How much has each of the individuals in question received in fees and expenses for services rendered?
3.	By what means does the government select individuals to undertake legal work and through what department?
4.	How many Crown corporations have retained the services of legal representatives in Nova Scotia since June 25, 1968, and in each instance (a) what
Orders for Returns
is the name of the individual (b) the firm represented (e) the location of the firm (d) the amount received in fees and expenses?
Return tabled.


Mr. Ritchie: 1.	Since January 1, 1967, have any fees or remunerations been paid to legal counsel and/or other persons for opinions and/or action arising out of reports of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission or for other activities relating to the Combines legislation and, if so, what are the names of
(a)	the counsel (b) other persons?
2.	What amount was paid to each and for what services in connection with what case, in each instance?
Return tabled.


Mr. Broadbeni: 1 For each year 1950 to 1969, what Government of Canada grants, incentives, etc., were awarded to the EMI Electronics Limited of Nova Scotia?
2.	For the same period what Government of Canada contracts were awarded to this company?
3.	Does the Government of Canada have any knowledge of the extent of provincial government financial assistance to the company and, if so, how much does it provide?
Return tabled.


Mr. Robinson: 1.	What research studies have been caried out by, or on behalf of, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development during each year 1960 to 1969 inclusive?
2.	What research studies are now being carried on and/or are contemplated during the next five years?
3.	What was the cost of each of the research studies completed in each year 1960 to 1969 inclusive?
4.	What is the estimated cost of each of the studies now in being or contemplated during the next five years?
Return tabled.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmoni): 1.	Of the $7,682,314.75 allocated in 1968-69 for foreign aid to Latin America and not spent (a) what was its designated purpose by item and what

October 5# 1970
Orders for Returns
was the proposed cost (b) for what reason was it not expended?
2.	Of the $3,317,685.25 that was expended (a) what was the nature of the expenditures, by item
(b)	what amount of money was expended in Canada (c) what amount of money was expended in the host country (d) what amount of goods or services from Canada was included and what was their cost (e) what amount of money was in the form of grants or loans (f) what were the terms of these grants or loans?
Return tabled.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmonl): 1.	Of the $22,347,810.52 allocated in 1968-69 for foreign aid to the Colombo Plan and not spent (a) what was its designated purpose by item and what was the proposed cost (b) for what reason was it not expended?
2.	Of the $103,952,189.48 that was expended (a) what was the nature of the expenditures, by item
(b)	what amount of money was expended in Canada (c) what amount of money was expended in the host country (d) what amount of goods or services from Canada was included and what was their cost? (e) what amount of money was in the form of grants or loans (f) what were the terms of these grants or loans?
Return tabled.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmonl): 1.	Of the $2,458,020.01 allocated in 1968-69 for foreign aid to other countries and programmes and not spent (a) what was its designated purpose by item and what was the proposed cost (b) for what reason was it not expended?
2.	Of the $7,621,620.74 that was expended (a) what was the nature of the expenditures, by item (b) what amount of money was expended in Canada (c) what amount of money was expended in the host country (d) what amount of goods or services from Canada were included and what was their cost? (e) what amount of money was in the form of grants or loans (f) what were the terms of these grants or loans?
Return tabled.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmonl): 1. Of the $9,368,732.55 allocated in 1968-69 for foreign aid to the independent French-speaking African States and not spent (a) what was its designated purpose by item and what was the proposed cost (b) for what reason was it not expended?
2 Of the $14,431,267.45 that was expended (a) what was the nature of the expenditures, by item (b) what amount of money was expended in Canada (c) what amount of money was expended in

the host country (d) what amount of goods or services from Canada was included and what was their cost (e) what amount of money was in the form of grants or loans (f) what were the terms of these grants or loans?
Return tabled.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmonl): 1.	Of the $13,006,839.72 allocated in 1968-69 for foreign aid to the Commonwealth Caribbean Assistance Plan and not spent (a) what was its designated purpose by item and what was the proposed cost (b) for what reason was it not expended
2.	Of the $9,103,160.28 that was expended (a) what was the nature of the expenditures, by item (b) what amount of money was expended in Canada (c) what amount of money was expended in the host country (d) what amount of goods or services from Canada was included and what was their cost (e) what amount of money was in the form of grants or loans (f) what were the terms of these grants or loans?
Return tabled.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmonl): 1.	Of the $10,341,270.22 allocated in 1968-69 for foreign aid to the Special Commonwealth African Assistance Plan and not spent (a) what was its designated purpose by item and what was the proposed cost (b) for what reason was it not expended?
2.	Of the $15,436,729.78 that was expended (a) what was the nature of the expenditures, by item (b) what amount of money was expended in Canada (c) what amount of money was expended in the host country (d) what amount of goods or services from Canada was included and what was their cost (e) what amount of money was in the form of grants or loans (f) what were the terms of these grants or loans?
Return tabled.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 1,626-Mr. Broadbent:
1.	(a) How many women are employed in each branch of the federal government's public service (b) how many of these women are married (c) how many have dependent children (d) how many are the sole support of their families?
2.	(a) What are the corresponding figures for men and women employed in the federal public service in the following categories (i) Executive (ii) Scientific and Professional (iii) Administrative and Foreign Service (iv) Administrative support (v) Operational (vi) Technical (b) what is the breakdown for men and women at the various levels within these categories (c) what are the salary ranges for these levels and categories?
Return tabled.
October 5, 1970
Mr. Rose: Is the Government of Canada in a position to state whether any department or branch of the United States Government is currently sponsoring research in Canadian universities, or individuals using university facilities and, if so (a) what branch of the United States Government (b) what was the general nature of the research for the years 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969 (c) what Canadian universities or individuals received grants, and what was the total grant for each of the years listed in Part (b), (d) will the appropriate government department provide a list of the specific research projects and the university where each project was undertaken for each of the years listed above?
Return tabled.


Mr. Lewis: 1.	Which Crown corporations have pensions plans for their employees?
2.	How are such pension plans administered and, in particular, what is the form of administration of the pension fund?
3.	What is the breakdown of pension fund investments by type of investment?
4.	What criteria are used in appointing pension fund managers (trust companies, etc.) ?
5.	In each year 1965 to 1969 inclusive, what was the tariff charged by pension fund managers for administration of pension funds?
6.	(a) Are employees represented on pension boards of trustees or other bodies (b) in what way are they selected (c) to what extent?
Return tabled.


Mr. Broadbent: 1.	For the fiscal year 1969-70 (a) which and how many non-resident owned or controlled firms have been awarded financial grants or incentives under the Ship Construction Subsidy Program administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce (b) in each case, what was the total financial grant or incentive allotted?
2.	For the same year (a) which and how many Canadian owned or controlled firms have been awarded financial grants under the Ship Construction Subsidy Program (b) in each case, what was the total financial grant or incentive allotted?
Return tabled.


Mr. Broadbent: 1. For the fiscal year 1969-70 (a) which and how many non-resident owned or controlled firms have 22478-63
Orders for Returns
been awarded financial grants or incentives under the Defence Development Sharing Program, administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce (b) in each case, what was the total financial grant or incentive allotted?
2. For the same year (a) which and how many Canadian owned or controlled firms have been awarded financial grants under the Defence Development Sharing Program (b) in each case, what was the total financial grant or incentive allotted?
Return tabled.


Mr. Brewin: In the years 1967, 1968, 1969 and 1970 have orders been placed by the government with IBM Canada Limited for computer equipment rentals or computer services and, if so (a) what are the amounts agreed to be paid by the government or by any department (b) what were the goods and services rented or supplied?
Return tabled.


Mr. McGrath: 1.	By category, for fiscal years 1949-1962, what federal taxes were collected in Newfoundland (a) personal income tax (b) corporation income tax
(c)	succession taxes (d) estate taxes?
2.	By category, for the fiscal years 1949-1962, what tax rental payments were made to Newfoundland (a) personal income tax (b) corporation income tax (c) succession taxes (d) estate taxes?
3.	By category, for the fiscal years 1963-1969, what federal income taxes were collected in Newfoundland under the federal income tax act (a) personal income tax (b) corporation income tax
(c)	estate taxes?
4.	By category, for the fiscal years 1963-1969, what provincial income taxes were collected in Newfoundland by the federal government as per collection agreement (a) personal income tax (b) corporation income tax (c) estate taxes?
Return tabled.


Mr. Coates: 1.	How many lease agreements were entered into by the federal government in the fiscal year 1969-70 that were for an annual amount of $10,000 or more?
2.	(a) What were the names of the individuals or firms providing space (b) what was the annual rental charge in each instance (c) what was the term of the lease in each instance (d) how many square feet of space was involved in each lease?
Return tabled.

October 5, 1970
Orders for Returns


Mr. Robinson: How many charitable organizations received grants of public funds during each year 1960 to 1970 inclusive and (a) how much did each receive (b) for what reason was the grant made in each case?
Return tabled.



CONSULTANTS ENGAGED BY DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES AND RECEIVER GENERAL


Mr. Howard (Skeena): With respect to each of the studies mentioned in the answer to Question Number 584, what amount of money was paid for each study and to whom was each payment made?
Return tabled.
NUMBER OF U.S. DRAFT DODGERS IN CANADA -NUMBER OF PH.D's

Question No. 1876-Mr. Moores:
1.	What is the Department of Manpower and Immigration estimate as to the gross number of United States draft dodgers currently residing in Canada?
2.	How many students were studying in Canada on student visas as of April 1, 1970 and from what countries did they come?
3.	(a) How many Ph.D.'s, by discipline and university, were granted by Canadian universities during the last five years (b) how many students by discipline and university, are currently registered for Ph.D.'s at Canadian universities?
4.	Has the Department undertaken any studies to determine how many Ph.D.'s, by discipline, wiU be required by the Canadian market during the next ten years and, if so, what reports are available?
Return tabled.


GRANTS TO NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP TRAINING COURSE
Mr. Orlikow: 1. Has the Department of National Health and Welfare been making grants to the National Educational Leadership Training Course and, if so, for how long, and for how much in each year?

2. Have the grants been discontinued and, if so, what were the reasons for the change in policy?
Return tabled.


NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COMPUTERS AND PRIVACY
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What role did the Departments of Communications and Justice play in the organization of the National Conference on Computers and Privacy held at Queens University, May 21 to 24?
2.	What are the names and addresses of those invited to attend?
3.	By whom and what basis was the invitation list compiled?
4.	What officials of the Department of Communications participated in the Conference?
5.	What was the total cost to (a) the Department of Communications (b) the Department of Justice for the conference?
6.	Are there any plans for future conferences of this kind and, if so, what are the dates and the sites?
Return tabled.


ADVERTISING EXPENDITURES FOR STUDENT EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What was the expenditure in 1969 on advertising for student employment programs and what is the estimated expenditure this year?
2.	What has each department and Crown cor-portation spent hiring summer students in 1989 and what is the estimated expenditure for 1970?
Return tabled.


RE-ALLOCATION OF FUNDS-ESTIMATES 1969-70
Mr. Coates: 1.	Were any Treasury Board Minutes involving the re-allocation of funds from one branch of a department to another pertaining to the estimates for the fiscal year 1969-70 approved during the months of March and April, 1970 and, if so, how many?
2.	In how many instances was the re-allocation of funds designated for Travelling and Removal Expenses of the department involved?
3.	How many departments of government during the fiscal year 1969-70 either estimated accurately the amount required for Travelling and Removal Expenses or over-estimated the amount and which departments under-estimated the amount and in each instance, what was the amount of the estimate and what was the actual amount spent?
Return tabled.
October 5, 1970


TAX REVENUE FROM SPIRITS, WINE AND BEER
Mr. Forlin: 1. For each of the past ten years, what were the tax revenues from (a) spirits (b) wines (c) beer?
2 For each of the past ten years, what were the social costs assumed by the federal government for alcoholism?
3.	Does the government intend to establish a tax structure based on taxation of pure alcohol?
4.	For each of the past ten years, how many alcoholics were there in each province?
Return tabled.


TIME SIGNAL BROADCAST BY CBC- ORIGINATION AT NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	When was it decided to originate the official time signal, broadcast over Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, at the National Research Council instead of the Dominion Observatory?
2.	For what reason was this change made?
Return tabled.


CANALS IN CANADA
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many canals are there in Canada?
2.	What is the length of each canal?
3.	What is the total cost of maintaining each canal?
4.	How many wharves and other facilities are there on each canal maintained by the federal government and what is the yearly cost?
5.	What fees, if any, are charged to use canals in Canada and is the fee payable to the federal government or someone else and, if so, to whom?
6.	Do the fees charged for use of canals and facilities pay the cost of (a) installation of services (b) maintenance of facilities and, if not, what loss was there on the operation and paid by the federal government during each of the years 1960 to 1969 inclusive?
Return tabled.


LOANS TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES
Mr. Caoueiie: For each of the past five years (a) in what amount (b) to which country (c) at what rate
(d)	under what terms, has the federal government made loans to foreign countries?
Return tabled.


GUESTS ON RADIO-CANADA PROGRAM, &quot;FORMAT 60&quot;
Mr. Rose: 1. Who have been guests on Radio-Canada program "Format 60" since the beginning of the fall season up to and including Sunday, April 26, 1970? 22478-63}
Motions for Adjournment
2.	How many were of the federal government?
3.	How many were employees of the federal government or of government agencies?
4 How many were of opposition parties?
Return tabled.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


MOTIONS TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 ENERGY SALE OF NATURAL GAS TO UNITED STATES
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the recent decision of the federal government to approve the sale of 6.3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas to the United States and the serious consequences this decision will have for the people of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: As required by the provisions of Standing Order 26 the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands has given the Chair notice of his intention to propose this motion for the consideration of the House at this time. The hon. member knows that one of the factors which the Speaker considers in such cases is the probability of an early opportunity to debate the subject matter of the proposed motion. We were informed earlier today that the new session of the current Parliament will open on Thursday of this week. The usual debate on the address should give the hon. member and all hon. members an opportunity to initiate a discussion on the subject to which reference has been made, and in the circumstances it does not appear that the motion should be allowed.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave under Standing Order 26 to make a motion for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration. I refer to the unacceptably high rate of unemployment which presently exists and to the well-founded forecasts, not denied by the government, that the rate of unemployment will mount

8756	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry even higher in the winter months which will soon be upon us. I draw attention to the effect of the present rate and of the forecast rate translated into terms of human misery. This is an urgent matter for all of us in this chamber. We should set aside all our business and consider solutions to this grievous problem of unemployment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: As required by the Standing Order the hon. Leader of the Opposition has provided me with the appropriate notice. This has afforded me an opportunity to give serious consideration to the important question for which discussion the adjournment of the House is desired at this time.
Perhaps I should say at once that the Chair fully appreciates the importance of the matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition. I know it is one which is of concern to all members of this House. In deciding, however, whether or not leave to make a motion under Standing Order 26 should be granted, the Chair must have recourse to the conditions set forth in the Standing Order itself as well as to the precedents and practices which govern motions of this kind. I have thought about this matter very carefully. As has been stated before from the Chair, the test of urgency and, indeed, of emergency, must be met as distinct from the question of the importance of the topic. The Chair must also take into account the explicit language of the Standing Order, which refers to "the probability of the matter being brought before the House within a reasonable time by other means."
I think it fair to assume that an opportunity of this nature will arise within the next few days and on these two grounds, and with regret, I must decline to accept the motion proposed by the Leader of the Opposition at the present time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the assurance given by the former Prime Minister, Mr. Pearson, that inability to speak both official languages would not prejudice the careers of unilingual Canadians, particularly those of 
DEBATES	October 5. 1970
long service, in the Public Service is still valid, binding and in effect?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the policy, as originally enunciated in 1966 by the Right Hon. Mr. Pearson and subsequently repeated by myself, is still government policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the statement made by the chairman of the Public Service Commission that the careers of some longtime public servants have been and are being prejudiced, has the government any measures to propose to ensure that the commitment given by his predecessor and repeated by himself today is, in fact, being observed, bearing in mind that it was in the context of this commitment and this assumption that the official languages bill was adopted in this House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Did I understand the Leader of the Opposition to say that the chairman of the Public Service Commission had stated that careers were prejudiced?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is not my own understanding, but at any rate nothing which the commission has been doing, as far as I can see, has been a departure from government policy. At this stage I can only express my confidence in the way in which the commission is handling a very difficult job.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I might refer the Prime Minister to the remarks made by the chairman of the commission on television and ask him now whether the government has given the Secretary of State responsibility for implementing the bilingual policy in the Public Service. Could the Prime Minister also tell us whether the government has given the Secretary of State and his department any terms of reference with regard to honouring the commitment made by the former Prime Minister, a commitment which the right hon. gentleman now says is still the policy of the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Those statements are the terms of reference of the Secretary of State who is applying that policy as enunciated by the previous government and as repeated by myself some time ago and again today.
October 5, 1970



POLICY RESPECTING UNILINGUAL EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
-INTRODUCTION OF PROTECTIVE MEASURES IN ACT
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-tings):: May I ask whether the government has given consideration to introducing adequate protective measures into the Public Service Employment Act so as to ensure that the kind of protection which was envisaged for unilingual civil servants by the former Prime Minister would be guaranteed by the law and, if not, will the government give consideration to a proposal along these lines?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not sure what type of guarantee the hon. member is suggesting. As he knows, the Act presently relating to the Public Service does give the commission authority to set certain standards in respect of residence, age, language qualifications, degrees, training, education and so on, and all these standards are being applied by the Public Service Commission along the lines upon which the commission has been operating in the past and along the lines of policy enunciated in the House.


George Harris Hees: As the chairman of the Public Service Commission has said, and I quote the words he used on television-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows he cannot quote the words. However, he can put the question in other terms.


George Harris Hees: I shall not quote, then. The chairman of the Public Service Commission said on television that the commission was not a creature of the government of the day, and gave a clear indication that he does not intend to follow the assurance given by Mr. Pearson in any way close to the letter of the law. I again ask the Prime Minister whether he will make sure that adequate protective measures are introduced into the Public Service Employment Act so as to provide that unilingual public servants are protected by law?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not see how the hon. member could argue that the Public Service Commission should be a creature of the government. Surely the relevant Act was set up in such a way as to ensure that the commission would be independent of the government of the day in order that it would not be obliged to hire or fire people on a patronage basis. This is the whole spirit of the Act. But, of course, the legislation has to be applied, within the rules of the Act itself, and along the lines determined from time to time by the
Inquiries of the Ministry government. The chairman of the Public Service Commission has taken a stand. Of course he cannot disregard the policy statements of the government, nor is he disregarding them.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Has
the Prime Minister spoken to the chairman of the Public Service Commission and been assured that the no-prejudice policy laid down by Mr. Pearson and repeated by himself is to be the policy now?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not spoken to him, I try to avoid interfering with the operations of the Public Service Commission. However, I have asked for a report on the subject and I am assured that nothing in either the acts or the words of the chairman of the commission represents a departure from government policy, perhaps with one minor exception when in response to a question on television the chairman said-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am afraid the rule applies to both sides of the House.



POLICY RESPECTING UNILINGUAL EMPLOYEES -CONSULTATION BY TREASURY BOARD WITH COMMISSION ON SELECTION STANDARDS

Mr. E. B. Osier (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of the Public Service Appeal Board's finding that some conflict existed between government policy statements and the policies of the Public Service Commission, as documented in the Globe and Mail of July 15, 1970, has the Treasury Board any plans to call for consultation with the commission over selection standards, as it has the right to do under the Public Service Employment Act, section 12(3)?


An hon. Member:: Put it on the Order Paper.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



POLICY RESPECTING UNILINGUAL EMPLOYEES -HONOURING OF COMMITMENTS MADE IN HOUSE

Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister indicate whether or not commitments and statements made in this House while dealing with legislation are being honoured by the cabinet at this time?

Ociober 5, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the question is very general. If it is a question of law, the hon. member should know that the statute stands by itself, and that statements made in the House or outside the House, if not incorporated into the law, are not binding on the House.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: That is why civil servants are receiving such bad treatment.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of economic forecasts that unemployment is likely to get worse rather than better in the coming months, and in view of the hardship which it is already inflicting on many hundreds of thousands of Canadians, is the government holding any consultations with the provinces, and through them with the municipalities, with regard to any kind of winter works program or public works program which will provide some additional employment during the next year?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we are not reviving the antiquated methods recommended by the leader of the New Democratic Party, but there have been a whole host of measures taken over the past year and indeed in recent months. There have been several announcements made by various ministers, and I could send the hon. member a list if he wants one.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since most of the unemployed will not be very fully satisfied or their hunger assuaged by lists, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government intends to announce any specific undertakings, intends to increase the money available for housing or intends to enter into any negotiations with provincial governments regarding winter works programs, antiquated or modernized? Has the government any programs to announce at this time to tell the people of Canada that it really is coping with the unemployment situation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Just a few weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, we did announce an extra $100 million for housing. If the hon. member had been reading the papers instead of his own speeches he would have known about that.



DATE OF REVIEW BY MINISTER OF FINANCE

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, it is not exactly a reassurance to us that the Prime Minister is so pleased today with the result of his economic policy, but may I ask the Minister of Finance whether he can give us the date when he proposes to make the extensive review of the economy which he has promised?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I would hope to be speaking during the throne speech debate at the first decent opportunity.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the Minister of Finance speaks during the throne speech debate will he outline to the House of Commons and to the people of Canada the specific steps that the government intends to take to revive the economy which, as the Dominion Bureau of Statistics states, is now at a standstill?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I will go further than that: I will also indicate the steps that the government has taken and the steps that we plan to take in the near future in order to keep the economy moving forward strongly.



MEASURES TO PREVENT BANKRUPTCIES

Mr. Georges Valade (Sainie-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the numerous bankruptcies across the country as announced recently by the federal Bureau of Statistics, does the minister consider them cause for concern to the government and is he doing something to prevent more bankruptcies in the future?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is inviting the minister to express an opinion and I do not think the question is acceptable in those terms.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Adrien Lamberi (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Minister of Agriculture feels a little neglected today, so I would like to address a very important question to him.
October 5, 1970

As the purpose of the government's 19701971 dairy policy was to bring about a decrease of dairy production, is the minister in a position to tell us today whether this objective has been reached in part and if so, whether the situation of industrial dairy producers can be expected to improve in the near future?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, there has been a very substantial improvement in the balance between production and consumption in Canada, as well as an improvement in the sale of some surplus commodities in the international market.



DAIRY POLICY-RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF SUBSIDIES

Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Considering the important number of milk producers who have abandoned the dairy industry owing to the decrease in subsidies, would the minister be prepared to announce that he will do away with this form of penalization in the near future?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the government has made the comment many times that the amendment of our policy is designed to improve the income of those people who are in the dairy industry as well as to be helpful in making adjustments respecting the numbers of people in the industry. I think we can look back with some satisfaction on the improvement that has been made during the past few months.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask another supplementary question.
Considering that nearly 16 to 20 per cent of the dairy producers in my area have withdrawn from the market, could the minister tell us exactly how many producers have been eliminated since he announced his dairy policy?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking for statistical information. I do not think that his question is in order.
Inquiries of the Ministry



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It has to do with the matter that he brought before the House this afternoon. In view of the diabolical nature of the crime which will give Canada a black eye internationally unless immediate action is taken to bring about the arrest and conviction of the wrongdoers, would the minister consider mobilizing, with the assistance of the Montreal police and also the Quebec provincial police, all experienced members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police from across Canada so that there will be the fullest and immediate action taken? The Mounted Police always get their man.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reassure the right hon. gentleman that the RCMP are mobilizing all their talents in this particular case, and I thank him for his expression of confidence in the force.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, while I realize that security and the need for secrecy are of importance during an investigation such as this, is the minister in a position at this time to say, on the basis of the investigation that has already taken place, that early arrests may be expected or anticipated?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, I regret that I could not give that statement. I will certainly make an announcement as soon as arrests have been made, but I cannot say anything about that matter until that time.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kenl-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the present disruption in Canadian agriculture as a result of the interruption of normal trade patterns by the recent action of some provincial governments and the grave doubts now expressed by them that Bill C-197 could ever provide a solution, does the government

October 5, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry intend to present the problem to the Supreme Court at the earliest possible date for a ruling?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the premise on which this question is based is false in that the provincial governments and the federal government have not expressed any doubts as to the efficacy of Bill C-197 in coming to grips with this problem.


Gerald William Baldwin: Nonsense! How about British Columbia and Manitoba?


Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. Has the government received representations from provincial authorities or any commodity groups to test the constitutionality of the Quebec court ruling affecting provincial trade? If so, what action is contemplated?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the possibility of taking that course of action was discussed at the federal-provincial conference held here in Ottawa in September. The considered judgment, or what I might call the unanimous decision of that conference as reported in the press, was that we should seek a solution to this problem by co-ordinating the efforts of provincial marketing boards through a vehicle such as Bill C-197.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, would the minister get a new law professor to instruct him on constitutional law?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The advice I have been getting is excellent.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that explanations given to this House and to the Standing Committee on Agriculture do not assure a solution of the problem of trade in agricultural products across Canada, will he undertake to make a statement on motions during this coming week setting out proposed action to deal with this problem?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I think I would have to consider very carefully the propriety of doing that because this House has referred the matter of marketing legislation to a committee which is now actively studying the proposal that is before it. It seems to me that

is where the debate ought to take place. We hope this study can be expedited as rapidly as possible so the provisions of that bill can be made operational for the benefit of farmers across the country.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, is the minister informing this House that decisions on trade between the provinces are to be reached in standing committees rather than by the federal government of Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a question.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Is he aware that technically it is impossible, because of the rules of the House of Commons, to have Bill C-197 passed during this session? In light of that, is he now prepared to take this proposal to the Supreme Court to test its validity?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I am also aware that if there had been greater co-operation from the hon. member and his colleagues this bill would have been back in this House long ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand the hon. member for Crowfoot is rising on a point of order and I will recognize him in a moment. I think I should bring to the attention of hon. members that we really should not have a debate during the question period on a bill which is before a committee of the House at the present time. The hon. member for Crowfoot has risen on a point of order and I will recognize him now.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege. The Minister of Agriculture has imputed motives to my actions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Let me make this point abundantly clear. I did everything within my power to co-operate and to solicit information as to the exact way this bill would operate. When the bill came up for second reading and was debated in the House of Commons I made one speech, and one speech only. I was accused then of holding it up. It then went to
October 5. 1970

the committee. Out party was not consulted on whether that committee should sit when the House was not sitting. We were given very short notice that we must come down here and meet-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The point has been made by the hon. member and I think we ought to go on to another question.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No, no. I have a question of privilege and I am not going to be silenced that easily. The minister deliberately imputed motives to my actions, and I have the right to defend myself in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: As I was saying, without consultation with any of the other parties, and without consulting the steering committee of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, we were summoned to come here on September 22 to hear witnesses on Bill C-197. We were here and we heard witnesses. Through no fault of mine, we are still hearing witnesses. If the minister wanted to rush the bill through and only hear one or two witnesses, that was his prerogative. I know for a fact that copies of the bill were not available all summer long. I accuse the minister of deliberately keeping the public from knowing the full import of this bill, and I accuse the minister as well-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Obviously we are getting involved in a debate on this bill, and I would suggest that this debate continue whenever we reach this order of business. I recognize fully that perhaps the first question should not have been allowed. I continue to recognize the import of the question and the bill referred to in it, but the hon. member has stated his question of privilege.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister should withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member has placed an interpretation on the words of the minister. Perhaps the minister might want to make an explanation in one word, because we ought to get back to the question period.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I would like to finish my question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the hon. member has very well enunciated his question of privilege. I understand what his statement is and that the question he has raised is that the hon. Minister of Agriculture has imputed motives. The minis-22478-64
Inquiries of the Ministry ter has no right to impute motives and, if he has, I am sure he would want to withdraw. The point having been made by the hon. member for Crowfoot, I think we should hear from the Minister of Agriculture. Then I suggest we go on to another subject.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: What I said was that this bill could have been back to the House some time ago if it had received co-operation from the hon. member and his colleagues.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is nothing but a lie.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I will let the record speak for itself. It is very clear that this bill did not have a chance to progress satisfactorily in the committee because the honourable member-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Timis-kaming rising on the same question?


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, while I was not named, nor am I a colleague of the hon. member who rose on the question of privilege, as a member of that committee I believe that the minister did not have the right to make his previous statement or the statement he has just made. The committee was called during the recess and it met. The decision to call witnesses was a decision of that committee. We are still hearing witnesses and the committee has witnesses before it. I believe that the minister is not correct in drawing the inference he obviously has drawn. If he draws that kind of inference, he is in effect saying that somewhere along the line there was a delay. The committee is now meeting to hear the witnesses it called. I do not think the minister has the right to draw that kind of inference about the operations of this committee of which I am a member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before we hear the minister further, I understand the hon. member for Annapolis Valley is rising on the same question of privilege.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: That is right, Mr. Speaker. I, too, am a member of that committee and I resent without reservation that statement by the minister. There is a fact that has not been put before the House yet. Perhaps the hon. member for Crowfoot intended to mention it but Your Honour rose to try to corral some of the comments that have been made. This very pertinent fact puts the Minister's statement

October 5, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry right into his mouth and he had better withdraw it. Bill C-196, the grains bill, was before the Committee on Agriculture up until the day the House rose for summer recess. As the hon. member for Timiskaming and the hon. member for Crowfoot have said, and as every other member of the agricultural committee knows, once we received notice through the mail, and thank goodness we got it through the mail finally, we came back in September to hold discussions in the committee on Bill C-197. These discussions are continuing. How the Minister of Agriculture can stand in this House and, even by inference, impute motives by saying that we have not been co-operating or that this bill could, through the use of some magic wand, be on the floor of this House for passage today, is beyond my comprehension.
Although there may be a yo-yo system of Parliamentary Secretaries and cabinet committees and a ministers' rotation system under which everything bobs up and down, the plain fact is that everyone on this side of the House does not bob up and down to the tune of the minister or even of the Prime Minister, and it should not happen on that side of the House. The minister should withdraw.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The minister-


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I suggest he should withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister was given an opportunity to make a statement. He has indicated he did not impute motives.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He certainly did. If he wants co-operation he had better withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister indicated he did not impute motives. This is the only thing the Chair can ask. The minister having made that statement, I do not see how a debate can be held now on this piece of legislation which will come up again.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Not at this session.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps not at this session, but the point having been made by hon. members I suggest respectfully that perhaps the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre might be given the floor.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare may I direct a question to the Prime Minister? In view of the commitment made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare that the government's White Paper on social security would be tabled before the end of the present session, can the Prime Minister say whether it will be tabled tomorrow or Wednesday?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Neither, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In
view of the fact that the commitment to table the white paper at this session apparently is not to be kept, when will we see this white paper?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Perhaps we will have something to say on this in the Speech from the Throne on Thursday.


FINANCE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, at the recent meeting of the International Monetary Fund directors, did the Minister of Finance give any undertaking to the directors in respect of pegging the Canadian dollar and, if so, what was the undertaking?


Edgar John Benson: Nothing whatsoever, other than to say that the Canadian dollar would be pegged at an appropriate time.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: May the
House be advised, as it is of importance, what the minister means by an appropriate time?


Edgar John Benson: The House will be informed when an appropriate time arrives.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Sl. Barbe):: Part I recommendations of the Veterans Committee report, would the minister be prepared to introduce legislation immediately based on the Veterans Affairs Committee report so that passage may be effected before the new session?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my appreciation to my hon. friend for his offer of co-operation. I know his co-operation will be available when we introduce legislation at the next session.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, would the minister give a clear indication when that legislation will come before the House?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: We will have to wait a few days to see what the order of business will be for the next few months.


FISHERIES
Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. At what stage are the negotiations between Canada and the Soviet Union in respect of the fishing operations off Canada's Pacific coast and when does the minister expect to make an announcement in the House concerning the outcome of these negotiations?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might
answer that question. The negotiations with the representatives of the Soviet Union are continuing this week. An announcement will be made either late this week or early next week about the results of our negotiations.


DEPLETION OF RESOURCES BY FOREIGNERS- CONVENING OF INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister a question. In view of the urgency surrounding the depletion of our marine resources by foreign nationals, namely, the Soviet Union, can he indicate if his department and the government are planning to take immediate initiatives to convene an international conference on marine resources involving discussions on management and conservation of the fishing resources off both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.
22478-64}
Inquiries of the Ministry


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, we do have a serious problem of overfishing in the North Atlantic. We have two avenues by which we can approach the Russians, for example, and discuss this problem with them. One is the International Commission for Northwest Atlantic Fisheries and we are in continuous contact with member nations including the U.S.S.R. We are also pressing our general approach to shelf matters and fishing in respect of the next Law of the Sea Conference which should be held within the next two years.


John Howard Lundrigan: Can the minister now
answer the question whether Canada, in fact, is now prepared to take initiatives to have a specific conference on marine resources in view of the fact that the Law of the Sea Conference is two years away and would get bogged down in discussions about mineral resources, pollution and various other complicated international matters? The question really relates to a conference specifically on marine resources.


John (Jack) Davis: Well, I think we should use the commission which exists for this purpose. As I said before, we are in continuous discussion with the other North Atlantic Commission countries including the U.S.S.R. in respect of overfishing in the North Atlantic.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Fisheries. Is the minister prepared to give consideration to expanding the conference currently in progress between the Soviet Union and Canada to include the east coast of Canada?


John (Jack) Davis: I think not, Mr. Speaker. We have a specific problem on the west coast. We do not have an equivalent in the Pacific of the International Commission for the North Atlantic Fisheries. We have no commission in existence so we are entering into bilateral discussions with the Russians. I think there may be occasions on which we can discuss similar problems on the Atlantic with the U.S.S.R. but as a general rule we would go through the North Atlantic Commission.


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, could the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Minister of Fisheries indicate whether the problem of Russian fishing on the west coast, and perhaps the east coast as well, will be discussed by the Prime Minister when he is in the Soviet Union later this fall?


John (Jack) Davis: I hope so, Mr. Speaker.

October 5. 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry URBAN AFFAIRS


INQUIRY AS TO ESTABLISHMENT OF COUNCIL
Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister without Portfolio responsible for housing, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister tell the House when the government intends to set up its urban council?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this council I believe was mentioned by the Minister without Portfolio but there is no decision as to the date of setting up such a council, if we do set it up. I am sure the minister, during the Throne Speech debate, may have occasion to state some further government steps.


Georges-J. Valade: Would the Prime Minister tell us whether the government intends to create such an agency with regard to housing?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As I have just said, Mr. Speaker, I believe that, in the course of the debate on the Throne Speech, other measures will be presented to the House and it will be indicated at that time if there is need for what the hon. member suggests.




Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I should like to ask him, in the light of representations made to him recently in the form of a black paper urging specific changes in Canadian policy to make it more consistent with Canada's official abhorrence of apartheid, whether he will make a statement in the House or perhaps before the Committee on External Affairs on this subject dealing with the representations made in this black paper?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, in the papers I tabled just before the adjournment the government set forth its policy with regard to apartheid and South Africa. There are some issues under discussion which have arisen

since that time or which were under consideration at that time, for example, the extension of the arms embargo to spare parts. Apart from that, however, I do not think it would be necessary for me to make any further statement on this matter.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence and to congratulate him on the little role he now plays. In view of the fact that he made a statement or speech criticizing the corporate attitude with respect to racial interests in the Caribbean, I wonder whether the minister would now tell the House when he will make a statement with respect to the government's attitude regarding South Africa?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I do not really follow the hon. member's question. If he would like to speak to me later and make himself clear, I will be glad to answer his question.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: I should like to direct a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour. Would he or the minister inform the House as soon as possible as to whether they are aware that several hundred laid-off employees of Mas-sey-Ferguson and other factories in Toronto are experiencing hardship caused by delays of six to eight weeks or even longer in receiving their unemployment insurance benefits, and has any action been taken to solve this pressing problem?


James Aloysius McGrath: That is only the first shot.


Mr. Ray Perrault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: I thank the hon. member for his question. I am sure that the minister will appreciate being made aware of this important and serious difficulty and that he will make sure the matter is properly investigated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: My question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. I would like to compliment him on
October 5. 1970

assuming his new portfolio, and I trust he will answer all questions with the same reliability and amiability as did his predecessor.
Will the minister advise the House whether the government proposes to take delivery of the balance of the CF-5 aircraft and what it is proposing to do with those that are in mothballs and those that have yet to be delivered?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I thank the hon. member for his kind remarks, and I trust the questions will be put in the same way as they were put to the former minister.
I should like to confirm that it is the government's intention to accept delivery of those CF-5 aircraft that have not to the moment been delivered by the manufacturer. As the hon. member knows, there are approximately 45 now in service. What the hon. member said, namely, that a number of them are in mothballs, is not correct. Probably he will have noticed that in a very few days a number of these aircraft will be flying to Germany and the European theatre for tactical trials in that area. At the moment, we have a number of possibilities under consideration to put them to use either in the role for which they were acquired or in some alternative roles. I would hope to be able to announce fairly soon after the current trials are completed how the aircraft will be put to use.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Would the minister assure the House that the tender prices have been accepted and that no extras have been paid by the Treasury Board in line with the original tender? Also, does the minister state that the press was wrong in the report that there were some in mothballs or in storage?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would have to check to see whether or not there were change orders involved from the original contract, which may have affected the ultimate price. The statement in the press that they were in mothballs is not correct.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of National Defence and it concerns the experiments in Europe. Will fuelling experiments in mid-air be tried in that period?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Not at this time, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry YOUTH


VANCOUVER-CLOSING OF HOSTEL-PROVISION OF SHELTER AND EMPLOYMENT
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway):: My question is for the Secretary of State. In view of the closing of the youth hostel in Vancouver over the past weekend, what action does the government propose to take which will provide shelter and employment for those who are now without either and who come from all across Canada?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that out of the 350 persons who were in the hostel on Friday, 175 have already found suitable accommodation and that several private organizations, with the help of representatives from several federal departments, are actively engaged in finding rooms for the remaining 175. They hope to find them within two or three days at the latest.


Winona Grace MacInnis: May I ask the Secretary of State whether or not consultation is going on with the provincial government, and through it with the civic authorities, regarding an adequate program of employment which will last through the winter?


Mr. Pelleiier:: Mr. Speaker, consultations have been undertaken, pursued, interrupted and resumed, with various results, with provincial as well as municipal authorities. However, the matter of looking after youths in Vancouver throughout winter does not come under the crash project of opening temporary summer hostels which had been entrusted to the Secretary of State Department. Rather, it comes under permanent services such as the Canada Assistance Plan and other services provided by the federal departments in co-operation with provincial authorities.


REQUEST FOR REPORT ON PROVISION OF HOSTEL ACCOMMODATION
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Secretary of State, either in the few days left in this session or early next session, table a report in the House on the hostel situation indicating how many were involved, the cost

October 5, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry involved, and what the plans are for next year?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the data related to this program, which was very successfully received throughout Canada, with one or two exceptions, are being sent to us presently. We shall be happy to inform the House about the whole operation when it is completed.


WHEAT-NON-DELIVERY OF FOUR-BUSHEL QUOTA-PROVISION OF DEFERRED QUOTA
John (Jack) Henry Horner: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the deferred quotas now being allotted to those farmers who never delivered their four bushel quota in the last crop year, would the minister assure the House and the country that every farmer who did not deliver the four bushel quota in the last crop year will be given an opportunity to receive a deferred quota?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but I wish to confer with my colleague, the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, with regard to this matter as there are other problems involved. We wish to make certain-and I am sure the hon. member agrees-that any deferred quota will be filled with grain produced by that particular farmer.


CANADA WATER ACT
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has the minister concluded yet any agreement with any province for anti-pollution projects under the Canada Water Act since the Act was passed in June?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that discussions on the agreement with New Brunswick in respect of the Saint John were entered into prior to the final passing of the Act, but I believe the ultimate implementation was under the Act itself. Of course, there are also agreements with Saskatchewan with regard to Qu'Appelle and agreements

with British Columbia on the Okanagan which come under the general framework and aegis of the Canada Water Act.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Would the minister make a statement to the House shortly regarding the progress of these various agreements?


John James Greene: I will be very pleased to do so. We are certainly continuing discussions with the province of Ontario in respect of the Great Lakes and with Ontario and Quebec in respect of the Ottawa and St. Lawrence. I am extremely hopeful there will be agreements in these areas in the not too distant future.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-184, to exempt certain shipping conference practices from the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Benjamin, seconded by Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre), moves:
That Bill C-184, an act to exempt certain shipping conference practices from the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act, be amended by deleting paragraph (a) from clause 2 and substituting therefor the following:
"(a) "Commission" means the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission."
The hon. member will perhaps suspect that the Chair has some procedural reservations about this particular motion. I have thought about the matter very seriously, and I would be pleased to hear the views of the hon. member and of other hon. members regarding the procedural aspects of the motion proposed by him.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, procedural aspects are not what you might call my long suit. However, the motion has been on the Order Paper since May 19. No one, not even my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre, said a word to me in the intervening time to the effect that it might not be in order, and I must say that I
October 5, 1970	COMMONS
am caught a bit by surprise despite my labours last night to get a speech prepared. May I submit that the purpose of my amending motion is to make the bill more practical, and that I am trying to be helpful to the government. I am not prepared to say anything about the procedural aspects but will rely on Your Honour and on the suggestions of others.


Mr. Speaker:: The point made by the hon. member is a very cogent one and I appreciate that this notice has been on the Order Paper for many months. Of course, the opportunity was not present for the hon. member to be advised that there might be some reservations about the motion that he had put on the Order Paper. He will appreciate that the Chair's reservations have to do with whether this motion, if it carries, would negate the principle of the bill that is before the House. I have some serious doubts about it, but I think it might be the wish of all hon. members that we give the hon. member the benefit of the doubt and that we proceed with the debate on the motion before the House, particularly in view of the assurance by the hon. member that he has worked long and diligently on the preparation of a speech which I know will be appreciated by all hon. members.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate very much your willingness to give me the benefit of the doubt. As I understand it, the intent of my motion is not to stray from the principle of the bill and in no way would negate it. I hope that, in my remarks, I can make that clear.
The purpose of the bill is to provide that certain shipping conference practices be exempted from prosecution under the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act. If I may cite the standing committee hearings, No. 26, of May 12, on page 26:15, I wish to point out that the witnesses from the Canadian Transport Commission said the purpose of this legislation is to provide for such exemption and to detail the conditions attaching thereto. If those conditions are not met, then the penalties provided under the Combines Investigation Act would still apply to these shipping conference practices.
In evidence given before the committee, witnesses from the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission and from the Canadian Transport Commission reiterated that unquestionably a shipping conference is a cartel. This is explicit in the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission report of June 15, 1968,
DEBATES	8767
Shipping Conferences Exemption Act which found that these conferences were in breach of the Combines Investigation Act. The Commission also reported that Canada and other countries could see no alternative mechanism available, and that this had impelled all governments, in Canada and elsewhere, to tolerate the system of shipping conferences.
Under the provisions of this bill, the organization that is to be the watchdog and the enforcer of the legislation is the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. Mr. Henry, the Director of Investigation and Research, is the man who is to have sole responsibility. The Restrictive Trade Practices Commission is to have sole jurisdiction over enforcing the provisions of this legislation when it becomes law.
The reason for the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission having sole jurisdiction- and I think quite properly-is that these conferences have already been found to be cartels and that they do in fact practice collusion. But the commission report concluded that in most aspects this arrangement, which amounts to a restriction of trade, had in no way harmed the public interest, and in certain cases had even been of benefit to it, even though the conferences were acting in collusion.
This bill provides that certain documents and information must be filed in order to establish that a shipping conference is meeting the conditions necessary to be exempt from the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act. Since the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission is the sole organization that has responsibility to see that this information and these documents are filed, and has the sole responsibility to examine such documents and files to see that the conditions are met, I hope the minister will agree it is only logical, and would certainly be more efficient, if these documents and information were filed with the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, and that the conferences should report directly to that commission.
Another reason for the bill is to lift the veil of secrecy that thus far has surrounded the operations of international shipping conferences, particularly with regard to rates, conditions of carriage and so forth. My amendment is meant to help lift that veil of secrecy. In the committee I sensed that there was some agreement with and approval of my amendment on the part of some of the minister's colleagues, even though they chose not to support my amendment in the committee. Since sole jurisdiction and responsibility rest
October 5, 1970
8768	COMMONS
Shipping Conferences Exemption Act with the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, I repeat that these documents should be filed with that commission. But the bill contains no such provision. According to the terms of the bill these documents must be filed with the Canadian Transport Commission.
Because the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission is the only organization that has jurisdiction and authority, during the committee hearings I inquired why these documents had to be filed with the Canadian Transport Commission. Time and time again, the point was made in evidence that the Canadian Transport Commission has no jurisdiction or authority over ocean transport.
There is nothing in the Canada Transportation Act that gives the Canadian Transport Commission power to exercise jurisdiction over, investigation into, or approval or disapproval of ocean shipping rates. But when I asked members of the Canadian Transport Commission why they should have anything to do with this proposed legislation they were able to cite three reasons which to me do not seem valid, and which certainly are not sufficient to require that members of that commission have their finger in this pie.
One reason commission members advanced was that the word "transport" appeared in the title of the Canadian Transport Commission, and since ocean shipping is transport then they thought the Canadian Transport Commission should be involved in this matter. Another reason given by one of the commission witnesses was that they are very efficient filing clerks. The third reason they gave was that since they were involved in transportation they could interpret these documents and bring them to the attention of the combines investigation people. Mr. Speaker, from what knowledge I have of the combines investigation people they are also competent in knowing something about transportation, and in the past have made numerous investigations into various aspects of transportation.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
None of these three reasons put forward by the Canadian Transport Commission is valid. They fly in the face of efficiency and it seems to me they serve to establish the fact that the Canadian Transport Commission wants to be involved in this thing as nothing more than a sort of post office. In my opinion, this would be an obstruction to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission properly carrying out


and enforcing the provisions of this legislation. Bill C-184, providing exemptions from combines legislation, has no effect whatsoever on any legislation having to do with transportation; that comes under the purview of the Canadian Transport Commission. Surely, Mr. Speaker, there is no sense in the Canadian Transport Commission having any say or any part in the implementation or enforcement of this legislation, because they have no authority and no jurisdiction. The Restrictive Trade Practices Commission is the only organization with any authority and jurisdiction in the enforcement of this legislation.
Hon. members may not agree with the validity of my second reason but I think it is valid because of some biases I have concerning the make-up of the Canadian Transport Commission. I, for one, do not believe that this body is noted for its concern with the public interest. It is not a body that has any history of concern for the public, whether in rail transportation or air transportation. It seems to have had interest and concern for the various corporations involved in these fields of transportation but not too much concern in the field of public interest and this is another reason I think my amendment should be accepted.
But there is a further reason. I feel that any time we can withhold jurisdiction from the clutches of the present President of the Canadian Transport Commission we will be rendering a great service to Parliament and the public. I do not see any point in enlarging the kingdom of Jumping Jack, a kingdom he was able to create himself and of which, strangely or maybe not so strangely, was crowned monarch. I feel this is an additional reason for suggesting this amendment, Mr. Speaker.
In my efforts to persuade the minister may I repeat that since the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission is the only organization with any authority and jurisdiction here, surely he will agree that the definition of "Commission" in the bill shall mean the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission and not the Canadian Transport Commission. The Canadian Transport Commission has no place in this legislation whatsoever and will serve as nothing more than a place to file documents. Surely this is an obstacle to the fast and efficient perusal of these documents by the Restrictive Trades Practices Commission. I think if the minister will agree to accept the amendment he will find that the commission that has the authority here will function much more quickly and efficiently in checking
October 5, 1970
on the international shipping conferences which are being provided with exemptions under the Combines Investigation Act.
Since the amendment does not involve any major upheaval or problems in respect of the rest of the bill, and does not throw any handicap in the way of its immediate implementation-in fact, I think it speeds up its implementation-I hope the minister will agree that the amendment is worthy of his sympathy, attention and consideration and that he will accept it on behalf of the government.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at any length on the hon. member's amendment in which he expresses a desire to change the meaning of the word "commission" in the definition section of Bill C-184 so that it will mean the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. I have some doubts about the full effect of his amendment because it is my understanding that the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission operates under the Combines Investigation Act, and the purpose of this bill is to exempt certain shipping conferences from the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act. I doubt whether the amendment is in order to begin with and, like the hon. member, I have some doubt that the Canadian Transport Commission has not shown any real desire up to this time to concern itself with the public interest. I would prefer to take the other avenue suggested in my amendment, that we go further and force the Canadian Transport Commission to concern itself with the public interest.
In my opinion, the two amendments are conflicting and therefore I very much regret that we will not be able to support the amendment for changing the commission to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. There seems to be some doubt as to the purport of the amendment itself and I believe it is in conflict with my amendment, which will be dealt with later.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, in supporting the amendment that has been put forth by my hon. colleague, it seems to me very realistic to suggest that those people who were formerly vested with the authority to police the regulations under this particular act should still be given the authority to put some teeth into the regulations. I am sure in the testimony given before
Shipping Conferences Exemption Act the standing committee it was pointed out very well that conferences are cartels and that this is universally recognized. It seems to me that if we are to give any authority the power to deal with the situation, it should be left in the hands of those people who had it previously. It would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that there is no suggestion the two amendments now being proposed are in conflict with each other. The amendment proposed by my hon. colleague clearly spells out the fact that it will give jurisdiction over this particular piece of legislation to the Combines Investigation Act and to the commission that would police that particular act.
I think it is only proper that we look at the situation as it has existed. We know the Canadian Transport Commission does not have the tools to police this particular legislation. If they do not have the tools, then we must have some authority vested with the power to impose certain restrictions upon the conferences if we see fit, and particularly if the commission sees fit.
I agree with my colleague that there have been circumstances where we could question whether or not the Canadian Transport Commission is really looking after interests of the people of Canada or the interests of those individual shippers in Canada who are not part of the conferences, and whether they are taking these into consideration when trying to determine the regulations under this particular piece of legislation.
In all sincerity, I believe that the amendment proposed by my hon. colleague is in order and should receive the backing of this House at this time. I am certain that the Combines Investigation Commission could police the regulations and could at least pay particular attention to some of the suggestions coming from the conference. I am frightened to think that the Canadian Transport Commission may police the regulations, as I believe the conference would be able to get to the CTC and in that way do things not in the interests of the general public of Canada or of the shippers of Canada.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I support the amendment 100 per cent, Mr. Speaker. I had hoped the minister would explain to this House why he and the cabinet are not in favour of leaving this piece of legislation under the Combines Investigation Act, but it appears that he is prepared to let the Canadian Transport Commission have jurisdiction even though he may realize they do not have the tools to do the job. They are

8770	COMMONS
Shipping Conferences Exemption Act not familiar with the particular case before us. The only ones who could really police the regulations are the ones given authority under the Combines Investigation Act.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of clarification, would Your Honour be good enough to indicate whether at this point we are debating the merits of the amendment or are we still discussing your Honour's opening comment with regard to the area of doubt concerning its validity?


Mr. Speaker:: The merits or demerits of the debate have not been put into question. The decision some minutes ago was that although there were some reservations on the part of the Chair as to the acceptability from a procedural standpoint of the motion proposed by the hon. member, that it should be put and considered by the House. My understanding is that this is the point we have been debating for the last few moments.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I apologize for having been somewhat confused in that regard. I wish to say a few words about the proposed amendment of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin). As the hon. member has said, it would have the effect of taking away the responsibility of receiving the documentation as required under this legislation from the Canadian Transport Commission and giving it to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission.
This amendment is unacceptable to the government. I wish to give some reasons why. The responsibilities of the Canadian Transport Commission under this bill are in keeping with its role under section 14 of the National Transportation Act, that is to perform its function, and I quote from the act, "with the object of co-ordinating and harmonizing the operations of all carriers engaged in transport." This is one of their fundamental duties, to see all developments in transport.


An hon. Member:: Ocean transport?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The hon. member asks if that function relates to ocean transport. There is a good deal of relationship. I wish to illustrate why there is this connection and why it is necessary to have this particular responsibility vested in the Canadian Transport Commission.
I think it is proper to suggest that in the National Transportation Act Parliament set

DEBATES	October 5, 1970
the stage for some of the recently noted Canadian incursions into the complex field of law of the sea and international shipping affairs. While superficially it might seem that the Canadian Transport Commission has little to do under this bill but receive and file certain documents and, if those are the limits, it really would not matter significantly which organization was the recipient of those documents. However, there is an important addition. It will be seen that the knowledge and skills in the field of transportation residing in that body would be vital to the successful and fruitful administration of this measure, and that it would be an integral part of the array of economics, regulatory instruments which Parliament requires the Canadian Transport Commission to administer.
That refers to the comments made by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg). It is precisely the reason that he outlined, that there are in fact shippers and customers who are not involved with or related to various shipping conferences and that there is the necessity for all of this to be reposed in the one place. If this particular aspect of it were given to the combines investigation branch, there would not be a mechanism through which the activities concerned in this bill could be compared with and related to those of non-shipping conference related activities.
I want to emphasize that this in no way overlooks the fact that in this measure the sanction for breach of any condition of exemption from the Combines Investigation Act is the application of that act. The Combines Investigation Act is still very much in play in this particular field. Nor does it overlook that the powers of the Director of Investigation and Research, appointed under the Combines Investigation Act to conduct research inquiries into the practices of shipping conferences, are assured by section 11 of the bill.
This is not a question of removing totally the activities, responsibilities or enforcement procedures of the Combines Investigation Act. It merely means that we have determined, in presenting the bill in this manner, that it is better to have the Canadian Transport Commission involved to the degree that the bill permits and at the same time to provide all safeguards which are present in the Combines Investigation Act, and in the manner that I have outlined.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Will the minister permit a question?
Oclober S, 1970	COMMONS


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has already spoken. Do I understand he wants to ask a question?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I wish to ask the minister whether it is correct that for the purposes of this legislation, and this legislation only, the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission is the only body that has any authority to implement the legislation and that the Canadian Transport Commission has none whatsoever.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: In the context in which the hon. member has asked the question, that is correct. However, as I pointed out a few moments ago, we are providing through the filing of the documents with the Canadian Transport Commission that they have detailed background information through the operation of this measure. In that way they can relate it to the other non-conference activities. I think that this combination, as I outlined it, with the powers reposing in the Combines Investigation Act, achieves our purposes in so far as it is possible for us to achieve them.
The government has never indicated total satisfaction with this measure. We have indicated that by providing in the bill that it has to be reviewed within a three year period. I think that the arguments that have been put forward during the earlier debate and in committee show that there is a necessity for this form of exemption, although in the long run this perhaps is not the most desirable approach if one takes the unilateral or individual Canadian requirements into consideration.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister if there is any obligation on the Canadian Transport Commission which receives these documents to refer them to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission to see whether there has been any collusion with respect to rates and other matters. Is it left entirely to the discretion of the Canadian Transport Commission or is it left to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission by separate research to get this information for themselves?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Without going into the bill in detail, I hope the hon. member will appreciate I am relying on memory, I do not recall what might be described as legal requirements on the Canadian Transport Commission in the manner that has been outlined. At the same time, I think it is implicit in the legislation. I do not think there it.
DEBATES	8771
Shipping Conferences Exemption Act would be any likelihood of their retaining that information for themselves. There are many many areas in which the Canadian Transport Commission and other agencies operate where they do not have the legal requirement to pass along information or to comment to another agency. It is certainly common practice that they do so. I certainly anticipate this will be the way in which the Commission will function.


John Leroy Skoberg: Will the minister permit a further question? Will the minister indicate what machinery has been set up within the Canadian Transport Commission to handle the filing of this type of material and, in particular, what machinery has been set up to ensure that any incidents of collusion by the conference will be submitted to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission under the Combines Investigation Act?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have to say to the hon. member that the Canadian Transport Commission would never deem or think about anticipating Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Therefore, it is obvious until such time as this measure goes through-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: -it would be quite improper for them-


Mr. Speaker:: I remind hon. members that we are not in committee of the whole at the present time. Questions directed to the minister have been answered. If there are no further contributions, the question might be put. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have
October 5, 1970

Shipping Conferences Exemption Act And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11) the recorded division on the proposed amendment shall stand deterred.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That Bill C-184, an act to exempt certain shipping conference practices from the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act, be amended by adding thereto, immediately following clause 7 on page 5, the following:
"Approval by Commission 8. For the purposes of this Act, a tariff, patronage contract, arrangement, agreement or contract shall not be valid unless and until approved by an order of the Commission as just and reasonable and in the public interest as defined in section 16 of the National Transportation Act; any tariff, patronage contract, arrangement, agreement or contract so approved shall not continue valid beyond a day six months next following the day the order is made or that day specified in the order as the day of expiration, whichever is the sooner." and by renumbering subsequent clauses accordingly.
He said: At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I should like to spend some time dealing with the whole subject of shipping conferences and shipping practices as it concerns my amendment. In effect, a shipping conference is a getting together of shipping lines to set prices and establish patronage contracts; in other words, to seek from shippers ironclad contracts guaranteeing that 100 per cent of a shipper's goods will be moved in vessels of the shipping lines meeting at the conference. In further explanation, I should like to quote from the remarks of Mr. Campbell of the Canadian Transport Commission as reported on page 14 of the proceedings of the Transport Committee on May 12 of this year. He had this to say:
A conference Is an association of shipping lines serving a precisely defined general cargo ocean trade, established by formal agreement of its members. Under this agreement, members will be required to adhere to a common tariff of rates and charges and, typically, to restrict competition. It will bind shippers to use only conference line vessels by a form of contract known generically as a loyalty arrangement in which the inducement to the contract signatory is that he will have applied to his shipments a schedule of rates which is lower than that applied to non-contract signatories.
Basically, we are dealing with a shipping cartel. The present bill would remove from the compass of the Combines Investigation Act certain people who combine to set rates and to seek ironclad contracts for themselves. Without doubt, this would amount to granting a monopoly in this area. Mr. Campbell makes [Mr. Speaker.}
the position clear when he states, as reported on page 15 of the committee proceedings:
Unquestionably, a conference is a cartel and this is explicit in the findings of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission which, in its report of June 17, 1965, found that conferences were in breach of the Combines Investigation Act.
The question which naturally comes to mind is this: are these shipping companies Canadian? Do they have the public spirit which prompts them to do good for this country apart from normal business considerations? Do they really wish to see Canadians benefit as a result of these meetings in conference? Mr. Speaker, none of the shipping lines which form this conference are lines operating Canadian ships. At best they are flying flags of convenience. All ships are owned by foreign concerns. So there is no genuine Canadian involvement here; we are dealing with international companies who are taking part in a cartel to set rates which Canadians have to pay.
Anyone who seriously considers this question realizes that when any government whether it is a federal, provincial or even a municipal government, permits a monopoly, it sets up a board to scrutinize the rates set by that monopoly with a view to determining what is fair and proper, bearing in mind the interests of the consumer who is obliged to use the services of the monopoly. This is the principle which is applied in the field of electric power, of pipe lines and of transportation generally. In the case we are considering it is true there is a board which has a certain interest, namely, the Canadian Transport Commission. But the commission does not scrutinize rates. All it does is receive the rates and file them for three years so that they are on record. Thus, the effective length of operation of this bill is three years. Perhaps, after that, some different system will be devised though I am inclined to believe that the measure will simply be extended for a further three years. From my experience of government operations, this is what is more likely to happen.
What has been going on? Mr. Campbell told the committee there had been an investigation which was the subject of a report tabled on June 17, 1968. This report was made under the terms of the Combines Investigation Act by the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission and I should like to read from page three:
Finally, the Director made the following allegations against steamship lines which have participated in shipping conferences in the eastern Canada-United Kingdom trades:
October 5, 1970

"758. It is my allegation that the following companies have been parties to a combination having relation to those commodities which may be the subject of trade or commerce and which are commonly transported by cargo liners, eastbound and westbound, between ports in Eastern Canada (including Canadian Great Lakes ports and Eastern ports of Canada other than ports in Manitoba and Newfoundland) and ports in the United Kingdom and Eire, by way of actual or tacit consent, agreement or arrangement having or designed to have the effect in relation to such commodities of
(a)	fixing common costs of ocean transportation, and
(b)	preventing or lessening competition in or substantially controlling ocean transportation,
This is what has been going on. These shipping conferences were designed to fix the costs of ocean transportation and to prevent or lessen competition in, or substantially control, ocean transportation. I emphasize the word "substantially" because from a legal point of view "substantially" does, in essence, mean "unduly". Here, the companies were found to have substantially curtailed competition.
In the bill before us it is proposed to legalize the practice which I have described for a period of three years. For three years, it is proposed to permit the present state of affairs to continue. Again, I wish to quote from the committee proceedings. Mr. Henry of the Combines Investigation Commission said this:
In this particular case the evidence which we had gathered appeared to us to disclose quite clearly an offence against the Combines Investigation Act-an offence that I would in simple terms call price fixing.
The witness referred to the committee report from which I have already quoted and went on to suggest that we were dealing, here, with a cartel-that "cartel" was another word for these conferences. So the evidence is clear. Yet, instead of doing something designed to bring about an improvement in the situation, the government proposes, in this bill, to legalize what has been going on. In considering whether Parliament should, indeed, legalize this practice, I ask the question: what have other countries done in similar circumstances? Let us bear in mind that this is an international problem and one which concerns international shipping lines. As reported at page 16 of committee report No. 26, Mr. Campbell had this to say:
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The Committee, Mr. Chairman, might be interested in an observation which appeared in the Economist of April 11 of this year, and I quote:
Shipping Conferences Exemption Act ... it is high time that shipping became subject to some kind of regulatory body with the function of ensuring fair competition. This is done in the United States by the Federal Maritime Commission and rather weaker measures to do the same are being introduced in Canada.
I want to re-emphasize the words "weaker measures to do the same are being introduced in Canada" because that statement specifically refers to Bill C-184. My amendment attempts to strengthen the measures proposed in Canada so that that regulatory body will have the power to do something about the cartel that is being given legal sanction by this measure.
It might be of interest to point out exactly what ships are involved in the cartel and how many of them are Canadian ships. In answer to a question put by me in the committee, as reported at page 24 of committee proceedings No. 26, Mr. Henry had this to say:
Mr. Chairman, I am not sure that my colleagues here have the exact figure to answer that question but I am sure it could be obtained. The figure that I have is that at the time we undertook our inquiry, which was back in 1962, the members of the conferences had carried over 80 per cent of eastbound cargo and over 90 per cent westbound. So there is no question about it that the conference lines have the major part of the trading both east and west within Canada, and I think those figures are probably valid now.
So that this bill will apply to practically all shipping serving Canada, both incoming and outgoing; there is no question of that.
I should also like to re-emphasize the statement that none of the ships are Canadian owned, and some are at the most flying flags of convenience.
It is also pertinent to ask how big a monopoly is being set up. How badly do we need a regulatory body to examine the rates that the monopoly is charging? At page 71 of the committee report Mr. McLaughlin, head of the Canada-United Kingdom Freight Conference, was asked a question by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) which is as follows:
Well, I gather you are the Canada-United Kingdom Freight Conference.


Mr. McLaughlin:: Yes, sir.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Are there other conferences operating out of Canadian ports to the United Kingdom and Ireland or is yours the only one?


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: No, we are the only one.
So that this bill will be legalizing the creation of an all-inclusive monopoly between Canada and the United Kingdom, to mention only one, a monopoly that will charge whatever rates it likes.
October 5, 1970

Shipping Conferences Exemption Act
I was interested in the remarks of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), who said that all the shippers have to do is to file the rates with an important and knowledgeable body, namely the Canadian Transportation Commission. But I ask whether that is good enough. My amendment purports to provide that on filing, the rates must then be approved by the commission. If they are not approved, then the conference is not legally created and the Combines Investigation Branch can take action against it. This would put some teeth into the act.
What has happened over the years? What brought about the investigation that was made by the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission between 1962 and 1965? I should like to quote from page 85 of the commission's report to give the House some idea. I should really read the whole page because the report goes on to outline quite clearly that the conference specifically sought to charge exorbitant rates to the Alcan Company of Canada for moving aluminum out of the Baie Comeau and Saguenay ports.
It appears that the conference wanted to charge $16 a ton, but Alcan formed a subsidiary company called Saguenay Shipping. Consequently, this automatically lowered the rates to about $13 a ton, whereupon the conference indicated it would now lower its rates to $11 a ton if it were guaranteed 25 per cent of the freight. There are many illustrations of abuses that deliberately held up freight and shipping costs. For example, page 87 deals with millfeeds and hides and the shipping rates are gone into very fully. In one particular case where the conference was the only shipper the rate on brans, shorts and middlings was $1.05 per 100 pounds. Then, when a competitive shipper was allowed to move in in the form of another conference line, the rate immediately dropped to 48 cents for middlings, 50 cents for shorts and 53 cents for bran per 100 pounds. In other words, the rates were cut roughly in half when competition came upon the scene. One can examine the pages of the report and clearly ascertain that without competition shipping conferences will charge, and have charged in the past, exorbitant rates.
What does this bill do to control exorbitant rates of the sort charged in the past? In fact, what can be done? A minute ago I said that the bill merely asked that the rates be filed. In case someone doubts that word may I refer to page 113 of the committee proceedings

where this question is clearly explained. Mr. Campbell says:
The bill requires that the form of contract be filed. This is the universal form that applies to all shippers. The shipper simply fills in his name and signs it.
The form is then filed with the CTC. What real strength is there in such a provision?
There is a great deal of talk today about foreign ownership of Canada, about concern by Canadians for Canada. I wonder how many people who attended the recent political convention of a party that declared itself to be concerned for Canada and how many people at the Liberal convention in London at the week end, a party which similarly declared itself to be all for Canada, are really aware that here in Ottawa sits a government that is prepared to grant a monopoly, a cartel, to shipping lines owned completely by foreign companies, lines that transport 80 to 90 per cent of the goods coming into and passing out of Canada?


An hon. Member:: Shame!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is a shame indeed. It is also a shame that we established the Canadian Transportation Commission. Bill C-184 would legalize the creation of a monopoly to charge exorbitant rates, and merely asks that monopoly to file their patronage contracts, and I suppose the rates charged, for a period of three years. That is not good enough. What should we do and what can we do? We could work toward the establishment of something similar to the International Air Transportation Association which sets the rates for world wide air traffic. Surely we are not doing that through this bill.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
As my amendment suggests, we could give the commission the power to restrict the agreements with shipping conferences if the rates are exorbitant. Nowhere in this bill do we give the shipper the right to appeal. The shipper in no way has an appeal to the Transport Commission, nor can he even suggest that the rates should be lowered.
If one reads the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission reports he will find plenty of evidence which will suggest there are many instances in which people have definitely sought lower rates but were not able to get them because of the monopolistic position of the conference. Without a doubt there is substantial evidence to support the amendment now before the House, and I would urge hon. members who are concerned about the welfare of Canadians and Canadian shippers to support this amendment.
Ociober 5, 1970

If we cannot export we can hardly survive. There is the old and often made statement, if we cannot receive fair and equitable shipping rates we can hardly compete.
In my opinion this bill legalizes something, which may or may not be termed highway robbery, for three years. This is like burying our heads in the sand and not facing problems squarely. It is high time that Canada said Canadian exporters and importers in international trade markets deserve a fair break. We will not allow Canadians to be subject to exorbitant rates which have in the past tended to limit and control our ability to export. Surely, this again will be a problem if we do not watch very carefully what we are doing.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I see no problem in supporting the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). At the same time, I would suggest that there was no real reason the hon. member could not support the original amendment put forward. In fact, all it would do would be to change the authority responsible for the regulations about which we are talking. The amendment now introduced by the hon. member would reduce the time from three years to six months.
It seems highly irregular that we should introduce legislation in this House that attempts to legalize those violations that have been well pointed out by the Combines Investigation branch. I suggest a good analogy could be made in respect of those people who have abortions. The government is not prepared to bring in legislation to deal with that particular problem in this society. Yet, at the same time, the government is willing in respect of these steel monsters of the ocean to bring in legislation which will legalize these violations of the law.
The main function of this House of Commons, and the members here, should be to protect the users of these services. We have heard many submissions recited throughout this country which set out very clearly that users of services and products hauled by these services should be protected. I suggest if we look at the situation in light of this amendment, at least it would be reviewed in a period of six months by this House.
If we look at the transcript of the proceedings of the standing committee which dealt with this at some length we will find this:
The Canadian Shippers' Council has publicly declared its support of the Bill and appears to feel that it provides a desirable statutory base upon which to establish effective consultative machinery.
Shipping Conferences Exemption Act
Then the report continues:
If I were to venture an opinion, Sir, it would be that this general acceptance is due to the fact that both sides have had ample time to anticipate the measure and they see in it a framework in which they can promote trade to mutual satisfaction and with minimum disruption.
Whenever I see certain conferences, such as we are dealing with today, refer to having minimum disruptions I wonder whether or not there really is legislation which concerns itself with this particular aspect. I am sure once again if we look at the situation, and consider these flag of convenience ships plying the waters of this country and this world, we would appreciate the fact that there has to be regulation. We must control these flag of convenience ships so we do not have a repetition of those things we have witnessed in the past number of years.
It is not good enough to suggest that conferences will regulate these things. It is absolutely imperative that we bring in legislation which is strong enough to regulate the conferences. I am not necessarily in agreement with the suggestion that too many regulations are particularly bad for any particular industry, because there have to be more rules within which these industries themselves must work. I feel the conference we are referring to here is one in respect of which we must have ground rules, and that there has to be legislation to police these rules to the extent that they mean something to those people who are dependent upon this phase of transportation.
The hon. member for Crowfoot put it very ably. There is a concern on the part of members of this House in so far as our Canadian identity is concerned. There is a particular concern about our national pride in those regulations that we have put into effect to govern the shipping industries to which we have referred.
There are many ship owners who do not belong to the conference, and they are not provided the same type of protection. Without that protection, they can violate the regulations without worrying about repercussions. For these reasons, I should like to suggest that we can support this amendment. It will at least give this bill some teeth in that we will review the situation in a shorter period of time than now suggested. The six month period is realistic, even though it may take time for the necessary machinery to be established.
I am certain that if the original amendment and the amendment now before us both passed, the situation previously referred to
8776	COMMONS
Shipping Conferences Exemption Act would not again develop. The restrictive Trade Practices Commission is well versed in the policing of regulations. With this change, that commission could again police these regulations and review the situation in six months.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise in support of the amendment submitted by the member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). For indeed, it was agreed between us that I would second his amendment, but the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Skoreyko) weighed in first.
The reason I support the amendment is that it would put more light on one of life's great mysteries involving ocean shipping rates, particularly that mystery to people of the ports of Saint John and Halifax. For some two dozen or three dozen years, the people there have found that the rates between their ports, admittedly at the eastern end of Canada, to United Kingdom ports have been the same as the rates between ports from Montreal and east on the St. Lawrence River to the same United Kingdom ports. This is a mystery because there is, or at least one would think, a several hundred mile geographic advantage to shippers in Halifax and Saint John. This supposed advantage means nothing to the four dozen odd shipping conferences. It is ephemeral and an illusion. It does not mean a hill of economic beans.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
At one time when the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission held its inquiry into the ocean conference rates and practices, the executive secretary of the port of Halifax commission, Mr. Ray March, used this language. I am quoting from the submission to the Commission of Inquiry dated October 2, 1963. It might be noted parenthetically, by the way, that Mr. March is now with the Canadian Transport Commission. He wrote this:
Because of this shorter distance between Halifax and the United Kingdom, we understand that a steamship line serving this route can make one extra round-trip voyage in a three month period than it could if it were trading between Montreal and the United Kingdom. Yet this advantage is not reflected in ocean rates.
Well, we do indeed have a mystery. In order to get the exact distances on the record perhaps it should be noted that according to the Canadian Ports and Seaway Directory, the distance from Halifax to Liverpool is 2,441 nautical miles. The distance from Montreal to Liverpool is 2,755 nautical miles. The distance from Halifax to London is 2,718
[Mr. Skoberg.l
DEBATES	October 5. 1970
nautical miles and from Montreal to London the distance is 3,094 nautical miles. In each case, the difference is approximately 300 nautical miles.
Well, sir, I tried to track down the mystery concerning why the rates are the same although the distances are different. I did this when this measure was before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications on Tuesday, May 12, 1970. My hon. friend from Crowfoot has quoted some of the answers and the Mr. Campbell to whom he referred is the same Mr. Campbell whom I questioned. I asked the following questions, as recorded at page 27 of the proceedings of that date in volume 26:


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, one thing that has always puzzled people in Halifax and Saint John is the fact that the ocean rates, as I understand them, are the same to Halifax and Saint John from, say, Liverpool and London as the rates are to Montreal, though I believe the rates to Toronto and Hamilton are a bit higher. Can any of our witnesses explain why this should be a way of life, especially in the light of the fact that there are over 300 nautical miles greater distance from Liverpool or London to Montreal than from those ports to Halifax and Saint John.


Mr. Campbell:: I think I could offer a possible explanation, sir. If I might be so bold, I am not sure that the subject of shipping economics is particularly relevant to this bill, but...
At this point I interrupted and said:


Robert Jardine McCleave: Is not the subject of rates particularly relevant to the bill? Are we not dealing with blessing practices which otherwise are outside the law because they are restricted?


A. Kim Campbell: We are blessing them subject to conditions; that is correct, sir, yes.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Yes, that is true.


A. Kim Campbell: The reason that the transatlantic rates to Halifax might be the same or even in some cases possibly higher than they are to Montreal might well be the same as why they are the same or higher to Toronto. If the bulk of the trade were between Montreal and Liverpool and en route the ship had to deviate to Halifax to pick up more then the ship is actually incurring extra costs in going to Halifax, the point being that if the ship could go from Halifax to Liverpool with full cargoes there would not be any question at all that the rate from Halifax to Liverpool would be lower, or should be lower than the rate to Montreal. But it is a question of the costing of the whole voyage to fill the ship.


Robert Jardine McCleave: There are cases, though, where the ships go directly between Halifax and Liverpool or between Montreal and Liverpool without calling at both Canadian ports. That is the question on which I am putting my emphasis. Why should this be so?


A. Kim Campbell: Sir, the question of the economics of ocean shipping is in my experience an extraordinarily complicated one.
October 5, 1970
By the time this volume is completed at page 135 I did not have an answer and by the time I filed subsequent questions I still did not have my answer. Let me continue outlining my puzzlement. Mr. Campbell continued:
I do not know that I could give you a satisfactory answer, but I think perhaps it should be noted that this bill does not purport to control rates. It requires that they be exposed to public scrutiny but. ..
Then, I said:


Robert Jardine McCleave: Well, then, perhaps this is in Mr. Henry's field since there was a study made, and presumably the study did dig into these rates and I think found out that they were the same though there was that 300-plus nautical mile difference, which would be more than a day's travel for, I suppose, most vessels.
Mr. Henry, who was the director of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission and of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, came in with this answer:


Mr.   Henry@: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I do not have the answer with me on that. I will have to get it and refer it to the Committee.
Then, later, on May 14, Mr. Henry writes to the chairman of the committee and in this letter states in part the following:
I find that we have no information on the point and the question could not be answered without further research.
Then, he refers to the proceedings in which Mr. March made his submission. After Mr. March made his statement there were some questions, and Mr. Henry in his letter refers to the following statement by Mr. March:
I know quite well the Conferences have good reason for maintaining the rate to Halifax the same as it is to Montreal. For one thing it is historical. It has always been that way.
Then, he continues the quotation as follows:


The Chairman:: Is there any other reason, Mr. March?


Mr. March:: It is historical. There may be some good reason for doing it, I don't know. But I am afraid at this time, sir, all I can do is present the predicament to you objectively. I think the solution must come from the Conference.
Mr. Speaker, obviously, armed with the basic question and the type of answer one gets in looking into it, the matter is worthy of further examination which I propose to give at eight o'clock this evening.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, namely, notices of motions and public bills.
Old Age Security Pensions



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. Barry Maiher (Surrey) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give consideration to improving the economic and social status of Canada's senior citizens by (a) increasing the income tax exemption to $2,000 for single persons and $4,000 for couples (b) lowering the old age security pension age for women to 60 years (c) exempting old age security pension payments from taxable income (d) supplying the full cost of living increase bonus to old age security pensions and making this bonus effective immediately each time the cost of living index advances by 2%	(e) restoring the $500 a year
income tax exemption for old age security pensioners at 65 years (f) giving the right to all pensioners receiving the Guaranteed Income Supplement to earn up to $300 a year (g) continuing the pension for a period of six months, following the decease of an old age security pensioner, payable to the survivor (h) increasing the old age security pension to $150 a month.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon a number of proposals were made to adjourn the House to discuss some matters of urgent and pressing national importance. For the reason Mr. Speaker gave at that time, these were not accepted. I wish to say that in my view the motion we are about to discuss is certainly one of urgent national and pressing importance. I put it forward in the way of a motion in the many parts Mr. Speaker read out so well in the hope that it would do something to meet the emergency of poverty which is engulfing many thousands of our older people. It is estimated, particularly in respect of those on the Old Age Security pension and the supplementary assistance allowance, that there are approximately 800,000 Canadians involved.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The situation in which those people found themselves last year was bad, but the situation in which they find themselves at this time is worse and is getting worse due, on the one hand, to the lessening of the purchasing power of the dollar through inflation and, on the other hand, to the failure of the government to act to increase their pensions. These people are now worse off than they were at the time when the supplementary assistance program was begun. By failing to act and to improve their pension base we are literally taking money out of their pockets at the rate of about $10 a month, and we continue to do

October 5, 1970

Old Age Security Pensions this at a time when at long last we have increased the pensions of our retired civil servants, of the RCMP, and, of course, of ourselves.
The motion in my name calls for the following action to be taken. It reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give consideration to improving the economic and social status of Canada's senior citizens by (a) increasing the income tax exemption to $2,000 for single persons and $4,000 for couples, (b) lowering the old age security pension age for women to 60 years, (c) exempting old age security pension payments from taxable income, (d) supplying the full cost of living increase bonus to old age security pensions and making this bonus effective immediately each time the cost of living index advances by 2 per cent, (e) restoring the $500 a year income tax exemption for old age security pensioners at 65 years, (f) giving the right to all pensioners receiving the Guaranteed Income Supplement to earn up to $300 a year, (g) continuing the pension for a period of six months, following the decease of an old age security pensioner, payable to the survivor, (h) increasing the old age security pension to $150 a month.
This motion follows very closely the brief presented last year at this time to Members of Parliament and to Senators by the National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation. The resolutions which I have encompassed in my notice of motion are on all fours with what has been proposed by the provincial senior citizens organizations across Canada.
I urge hon. members not to defeat this motion. The passage of any of its parts could bring the comfort and help to many thousands of homes across the nation which is so badly needed. Members of all parties have at one time or other voiced the opinion that the time is overdue for this House and the government to do something on behalf of old age pensioners, but if there has been one person in the House who, over the years, has spearheaded such an appeal, it has been the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), my colleague. Let me refer to just one of the numerous speeches and references he has made on the necessity of doing something now about old age pensioners. I will paraphrase briefly what he said in the House last May 4.
It should be remembered that the situation of which he spoke then has since deteriorated further as regards so many of our older people. At that time, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre pointed out that there were approximately one and a half million old age pensioners in Canada, and of that number over half, about 785,000, were so poor as to be on the guaranteed income supplement. Of that figure again over half, that is

473,000, drew the full amount of the guaranteed income supplement. To get the full guaranteed income supplement, one has to have literally nothing.
The hon. member also quoted some other figures. While the consumer price index had gone up at that time rather more than 16 per cent, increases in old age pensoners' incomes, in line with the 2 per cent a year increase linked with the cost of living increase, had gone up approximatey 6.1 per cent. So, the old age pensioners have not received a 6 per cent guideline increase in income but have taken what amounts to a 10 per cent cut in their income, and this at a time when so many prices, wages, profits and other incomes have gone up a great deal beyond the 6 per cent that the government recognizes.
It is surely a twist of the economic screw that the very increases in income, profits and prices which the more affluent of us have secured over the last period have added to the cost and the burdens of those people who are least able to support them, that is the old age pensioners. They have lost about $10 out of every $100 they have taken in, and we continue to let them do that.
This motion, if passed or referred for action to a committee, would help to correct that situation. I ask hon. members not to oppose it, and if possible to support it to the extent of sending it for action to a committee.
I hope that spokesmen for the government will not remind me of the study of social security which the government is still conducting. The old age pensioners of Canada are being studied to death.


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, this is a very generous and noble resolution. I am moderately amazed that we do not also have a provision to offer free tobacco to old age pensioners in addition to the many other marvellous things we would like to do for them. Certainly, no one could argue with the sentiments or the desirability of providing the various levels of benefits which the hon. member has proposed. One might find it difficult to see how we can achieve this if we adopt some of the rather introverted economic policies that members of his party have advocated for our country in recent days. Nevertheless, the fact is that the government is anxious, and could not be more anxious, to ensure that Canada's senior citizens are able to live in comfort and in dignity. The government is and will continue for many years to
October 5, 1970

endeavour to assure this comfort and dignity to the extent possible in our economy.
In recent years the government has introduced many measures speciflcially designed to provide benefits where they are most needed among this group. Examples of these measures are the laws providing for increases in the old age pension in accordance with increases in the cost of living; for the gradual reduction in the age of eligibility for this pension from 70 to 65; and for the guaranteed income supplement for those old age pensioners who have little or no income other than the pension. In addition, benefits are also provided under the Canada Assistance Act. By providing these selective measures rather than providing universal benefits to older persons, the government has been able to ensure the provision of benefits where they are most needed.
This motion was placed on the Order Paper about eleven days prior to the tabling in the House of Commons of the white paper proposals for tax reform, and I suppose it is somewhat appropriate that in a few minutes time we will be asked to revert to another order of business in order to receive the report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs on the hearings that it has conducted over the period from January 15 to September 11 on the tax reform proposals. The proposals did anticipate to some extent the specific recommendation in the motion before us that income tax exemptions be increased.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Again relying on the exemption system, certainly no one could argue that we would not like to see higher exemptions. If the $1,000 exemption for a single person was valid in 1949, then certainly the $1,400 proposed in the white paper, or indeed the $2,000 proposed in this motion, does not relate arithmetically to the increased cost of living in that 21 year period. But nevertheless there have been many other benefits extended to these people, many other opportunities for a fuller share in the economic well being of Canada, and we cannot simply relate, in terms of arithmetic, the exemption system to the increase in the cost of living over the years.
It is not clear from this motion whether it is intended that the exemption increase would be provided to all taxpayers or only to older taxpayers, although I gather from the spirit of the motion that we are talking about older taxpayers in this case. However, without offsetting changes in the rate schedule, it should

Old Age Security Pensions be noted that an exemption increase is of greater absolute value to those with higher incomes than to those with lower incomes because it frees from tax those dollars which are subject to the highest marginal rate of tax applicable to an individual's income. For example, under the present tax law taxpayers in Ontario with taxable incomes of $1,000, $7,000 and $20,000 respectively would receive tax relief of $150, $268 and $464 from an exemption increase of $1,000. In other words, it would benefit those older citizens who are well off more than twice as much as it would benefit those with modest incomes. Further, it would not provide any benefit to those individuals who have insufficient income to be taxable.
The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), who is sitting in the chamber, advocated the tax credit system to avoid this particular problem when he spoke during the hearings of the Finance Committee. Perhaps he will take part in this debate in order further to elaborate his views. We are faced with the anomaly of the exemption system benefiting those who need the help the least, and giving the most benefit to those who are relatively better off. The white paper proposals overcome this to some considerable extent by adjustment in the rate schedules.
The white paper proposal for exemption increases of $400 for single taxpayers and $800 for married taxpayers, as well as the offsetting changes in the rate schedule, will to a large extent offset the revenue loss involved in the exemption increase which is proposed. Certainly, without some considerably greater revision of the rate schedule than is contemplated under the white paper, the increase of exemptions to the extent recommended in this particular motion would result in a considerable drain on the treasury, one for which the government would be hard put to compensate.
Under the proposals, and bearing in mind the $500 special deduction allowed to taxpayers of the age of 70 or more, the exemption increase proposed will ensure that these taxpayers will not pay tax unless the income of the individual taxpayer exceeds $2,000 if he is taxed as a single person and $3,400 if he is eligible to claim married status.
In the motion, it is also proposed that old age security pension payments be exempted from income tax. When the old age pension was introduced in 1952 it was decided that the pension should be universal with no means test, but that it should be partially
October 5, 1970

Old Age Security Pensions recovered through taxation where the recipients also received income from other sources. In that way those individuals with little or no income other than the old age pension retain the full amount of the pension while those with higher incomes pay back a portion of the pension through taxation. Again, the proposal put forward by the hon. member would most benefit those pensioners with higher incomes.
I think it is implicit in the hon. member's motion that the persons who in fact rely entirely on the old age security pension are not likely to be paying income tax, and again we are faced with the anomaly of benefiting most those who need the help least if we exempt old age security pension payments from the income tax law.
Moreover, income in the form of an old age pension is used in the same way and has the same characteristics as other forms of income. It seems most equitable that taxpayers be taxed on the same basis when they are essentially in similar situations, even though their incomes may originate and may be derived from different types of sources.
The motion also proposes lowering the old age security pension age for women to 60 years. I appreciate that this motion was drafted almost a year ago, when perhaps it was policy to treat women somewhat differently from men, but again the hon. member might wish to reconsider this particular aspect of his motion in view of the militant behavior of the female wing of his party in recent days. They might not appreciate this break.


An hon. Member:: Wait until they get on your back.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Well, perhaps money talks.
It is also proposed under the motion that the special $500 deduction allowed to taxpayers of 70 years or more be made available to pensioners at age 65. In 1965 the eligible age for receipt of the old age security pension was reduced from age 70 to age 65. This important change added substantially to the cost of providing that pension. The government decided that, rather than impose new taxes, part of this additional expenditure would be off-set by withdrawal of the special $500 deduction from those individuals under age 70 who received the old age pension. In this way again those most in need of the pension, because they had little or no other income, would receive the full benefit of the

pension while those with higher incomes would pay back part of the pension through taxation. All new recipients of the pension, except those with very high incomes, were better off because of receipt of the pension even though they gave up the special $500 deduction.
An individual who became eligible late in the year and so would receive the pension for only one or two months might find that loss or the $500 deduction increased his tax by more than one or two month's pension payments. Such an individual could delay applying for the pension until the beginning of the following year and thus retain the $500 deduction for the year in which he became eligible for the pension.
A deduction based on age is not a very logical or precise way to provide tax relief. Some individuals over age 65 or 70 have large incomes. The attainment of a certain age does not necessarily result in higher expenses or a reduced ability to pay income tax. A deduction of $500 provides a much larger amount of tax deduction for a person with a high income than for a person with a low income.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Raise your rates then.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Unfortunately, the motion does not embody the proposition that rates be raised to make up the revenue and the need to create greater equity in the tax structure. The justification for this kind of deduction must be that it will exempt completely from tax a number of older people with low incomes for whom completing a tax form may be a cause of considerable trouble and worry. These difficulties are not likely to be nearly so prevalent at age 65 as they may be at some of the older ages.
The Carter Commission in its report recommended that the special $500 deduction be withdrawn for all taxpayers. The white paper proposes that this deduction be continued for those who have reached age 70.
A great deal of time and talk have been devoted in the Finance Committee and the House of Commons to the white paper proposals, particularly to those dealing with personal income tax, revolving around the relative situations in Canada and the United States. Under the white paper proposals we would have a basic exemption for single status of $1,400 and a basic exemption for married status of $2,800, with additional deductions for each dependant under age 16
October 5, 1970

of $300 and additional deductions for each dependant over age 15 of $550. Taxpayers over age 69 would be entitled to an extra additional exemption of $500. Of course, there is the standard optional deduction of $100 for taxpayers who do not claim a deduction for charitable donations or medical expenses for this age group as well.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
In the United States at the present time the basic exemption for the single taxpayer is $600. This will increase to $625 for the current fiscal year in the next income tax return. When the tax reform measures are ultimately fully adopted in the United States that exemption will be $750. The exemption for the spouse is exactly the same, $600 at the present time and $625 for the income tax return filled in respect of the current taxation year and when their tax reform is fully implemented it will be $750. Dependant deductions in the United States are the same as those for the spouse-$600 increasing to $750. The additional exemption for taxpayers over age 64 is now $600 and will increase to $750. If the spouse is over age 64 and is filing a joint return, the exemption is in like amount.
The standard optional deduction is a rather complicated issue in the United States but admittedly is more generous than ours. Since married taxpayers in the United States usually file joint returns where the income of the husband and wife is combined and regarded as received in equal portions by each, it does not matter for federal U.S. income tax purposes whether the income shown is all received by one marriage partner or partly by each. This fact is quite important in calculating Canadian tax.
Under the white paper proposals we are suggesting $150 employment allowance. With all respect to the hon. member, not all or even the majority of taxpayers of age 65 are unemployed and totally dependant on old age assistance, old age security and so on. Many are employed and this particular benefit will also be available to that age group.
In concluding my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I should like to reiterate that a considerable improvement has taken place in the Canadian old age income maintenance system in recent years. Examples include the introduction of the Canada Assistance Plan, the Canada Pension Plan, the guaranteed income supplement program and several improvements in the old
Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs age security program and benefits. In this latter case the minimum qualifying age has been reduced to 65 from 70. In addition, benefits are adjusted in accordance with the index used under the Canada Pension Plan.
I should like to emphasize that the financial implications of this program that already exists have been quite substantial. For example, the federal outlays under the Old Age Security Act alone are expected to amount to over $1.7 billion in the current fiscal year, as compared with total outlays of $927 million in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1966. It is not quite double but close to it in four years.
Mr. Speaker, I should also like to note that the government has announced its intention to issue a white paper on social security.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did
you not hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) today?


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: It will be tabled, and no doubt discussed in public, in keeping with the government's policy of allowing the fullest possible public debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary but his time has expired. The hon. member for Gatineau.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, with unanimous consent, would the House revert to routine proceedings?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gaston Clermont: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the eighteenth report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic affairs.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
October 5, 1970

Old Age Security Pensions



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mather:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give consideration to improving the economic and social status of Canada's senior citizens by (a) increasing the income tax exemption to $2,000 for single persons and $4,000 for couples (b) lowering the old age security pension age for women to 60 years (c) exempting old age security pension payments from taxable income (d) supplying the full cost of living increase bonus to old age security pensions and making this bonus effective immediately each time the cost of living index advances by 2%	(e) restoring the $500 a year
income tax exemption for old age security pensioners at 65 years (f) giving the right to all pensioners receiving the Guaranteed Income Supplement to earn up to $300 a year (g) continuing the pension for a period of six months, following the decease of an old age security pensioner, payable to the survivor (h) increasing the old age security pension to $150 a month.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, first of all may I be one of the first to offer my congratulations on your election as Deputy Speaker of this House. I hope your tenure of office will be a happy and fruitful one. It may sometimes be a little rough, since these are not the smoothest seas to sail. As we know, having come back this afternoon after a three month respite, there are areas of sudden squalls in this House but I trust none of these will be deliberately motivated to upset any occupant of the Chair.
The motion that is before us today can almost be characterized as a grab-bag of every possible exaggerated claim that could be made, and the results could be far different from those envisaged by those who put forward such a proposition. I am not going to go into the content of the white paper and what the proposition might be and what the committee said. This is now official and I can speak with more freedom than could the hon. parliamentary secretary, who was skating on thin ice a few moments ago when he referred to some of the things that had been discussed before the committee before the report had been tabled.
If we were to look at the motion before us I think the hon. proposer would agree with me that the government should give consideration to improving the economic and social status of certain of Canada's senior citizens.

He says of all of Canada's senior citizens. The net result of his proposal has been to enunciate the disparities at almost every level because he speaks generally of each class in the same way.
I find it rather strange that the party with which he is affiliated would allow him to put forward a motion of this kind, bearing in mind that their stated purpose in life is to bring about a gradual egalitarianism in society. The net result of this motion, however, is to bring about wider disparity.
First of all, let us look at the increase in income tax exemption of $2,000 for single persons and $4,000 for couples. That means the person who is earning $2,200 and the person who is earning $50,000-very few might be earning $50,000 so let us say $25,000 because there are many in the public service today earning $25,000 a year-would get the same benefit at the marginal rates. The difficulty in increasing exemptions is that the effect is at the marginal rate of the taxpayer. Taxpayers with a 50 per cent marginal rate-in this particular instance a married couple-would receive a benefit of $1,000. A person earning $3,000 or much lower, where the marginal rate is much less-it could be as low as 15 per cent-would receive a mere pittance.
That is why the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mahoney) stated I have long advocated that greater equity could be achieved through a tax credit system. Unfortunately the government has not seen fit to follow this suggestion. I maintain that greater justice would be achieved with a tax credit system, notwithstanding the fancy arguments advanced by government experts with regard to difficulties in connection with tax credits, and that they could do better by raising the exemptions. I remain unconvinced, as I think most people do, that greater equity would be achieved by increasing the exemption proposed by the government.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
All this motion does is widen the gap. There is even greater disparity because we are dealing with much larger figures. I am not dealing with the question of where we would get the revenue and what it would cost the national treasury if there were a general increase in exemptions. This proposal would double the personal exemption. At the present time it might cost approximately $2 billion a year for this one provision.
I will now deal with proposal (b), lowering the old age security pension age for women to
October 5, 1970

60 years. What will it be in five years' time? Will it be age 55? This is the first time I have seen this proposal made. I do not know why it is put forward at this point. Some people ask for a pension at age 45. Some men have told me they are tired of working and would like a pension at age 50.
Proposal (c), exempting old age security pension payments from taxable income, is another provision whereby the disparity between the middle-income group and the lower-income group would be increased because there is no limitation. A retired judge of the Supreme Court is entitled to 70 per cent of his retirement salary of $26,000 for which he has made no contribution. At the rate of $2,000 or $4,000, since he is the sole taxpayer, he would be exempt from income tax. He would be done a great favour; there are no two ways about it. On the other hand, very little is done for the person with more modest means. The gap is widened even more.
Proposal (d) refers to supplying the full cost of living increase bonus to old age security pensions and making this bonus effective immediately each time the cost of living index advances by 2 per cent. I criticize that proposal. With all automatic cost of living bonuses there is a built-in inflation factor: the more the inflation, the more you give. There is more call for higher bonuses. It is a cancer, if it is tied to the cost of living increase.
The next proposal, (e), suggests restoring the $500 a year income tax exemption for old age security pensioners at 65 years. I agree with this proposal because the exemption was taken away by a sleight-of-hand method. It was part of the old shell game which was used when introducing the guaranteed income supplement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It
came in at the time of the Canada Pension Plan.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It came in at the time of the Canada Pension Plan, but it was an increase to allow the changes to age 65 on a five year progression. This was one of the elements used to compensate for the increased cost. It was coincidental with the Canada Pension Plan but not part of it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It
was not part of the guaranteed income supplement.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I thank the hon. member for helping the two of us fall
Old Age Security Pensions into the right alley. Sometimes it takes two people with roughly the same recollection to do this. In any event, in order to pay for the increase in old age pension which was instituted in 1964 and made effective in 1965, the $500 exemption for taxpayers between ages 65 and 70 was removed. I think that was really fiscal double-talk. The taxpayers did not understand what was happening, neither did the old age pensioners. I think that exemption should be restored.
The next proposal is (f), giving the right to all pensioners receiving the guaranteed income supplement to earn up to $300 a year. I wonder about that. Proposal (h) calls for increasing the old age security pension to $150 a month, which would mean $1,800 a year. How on earth could the guaranteed income supplement apply, because that act states that an income shall be $1,260 per annum. If one received the whole of the increased old age security pension there would be no guaranteed income supplement. There would be no need for a guaranteed income supplement. Proposal (f) would be superfluous.
Proposal (g) refers to continuing the pension for a period of six months, following the decease of an old age security pensioner, payable to the survivor. Is this to be a bonus? Is this to be a funeral expense allowance of some sort? I have not heard any argument in favour of this proposal. However, it would be very nice for the survivor to receive this additional pension. Here again, it would be payable to the rich and to the poor. An old age pensioner of 70 or 71, a retired public servant with a pension of $15,000 a year, with a wife of the same age, who unfortunately lost his wife would receive a bonus of six months' pension, or $900, under this proposal since under provision (h) there would be an old age security pension of $150 a month. Should the state pay him solace to this extent for the loss of his wife? I hardly think so. This money would be tax free, because it was asked earlier that old age pension payments should be free of income tax. Therefore you would be giving a $900 tax-free bonus.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
While the motivation behind a number of these provisions has been bona fide, the packaging of them together has created a fiscal nightmare. It has certainly created a tremendous bill for the national treasury. The present policy is to make the old age security fund self-sustaining by reason of three points of income tax and one point of sales tax
October 5, 1970

Old Age Security Pensions being applied to it. In order to pay the bill which would be called for by this resolution, I do not know by how much we would have to multiply that three per cent of income tax, and we might have to exact a 5 per cent additional sales tax in order to do it.
There is nothing magical about old age security. It is a special fund which is self-sustaining. There is no claim on consolidated revenue, unless the legislation is changed. It is made a charge on consolidated revenue without reference to the payments which are made by each and every individual. I say each and every individual because I do not think there is a taxpayer in Canada who escapes the effects of income tax, corporate tax or sales tax. To this extent, old age security as we know it is in part a contributory tax: everyone contributes to it. Remember, it is Canadians who will have to pay for these proposals; therefore I cannot in any way support the motion.
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre): Mr. Speaker, the plight of senior citizens in Canada today is so serious that I had hoped the introduction of this resolution by my hon. friend the member for Surrey (Mr. Mather) would have brought forth positive statements by Liberal and Conservative spokesmen as to what they would do about the situation. Instead we have heard from the new Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mahoney) and from the financial spokesman for the official opposition exercises in which they have found all the faults they could in the motion presented by my hon. friend.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is your motion which is under discussion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is perfectly correct, it is our motion, and the purpose in introducing it is to bring before Parliament the plight of our old age pensioners. I submit that if the hon. gentlemen who have just spoken shared the concern which my hon. friend has expressed, they would have brought forth positive suggestions. But this they failed to do.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is a
specious argument.


Stanley Howard Knowles: am ready to admit that there are points in my hon. friend's resolution which require further study so that they can be harmonized with each other. But I point out that in the course of his remarks he expressed the hope that the

House would see fit to refer his resolution to a committee for study. In other words, he admitted there were points which ought to be studied further. I would also draw attention to a fact which should be known to all members of this chamber: the various senior citizens' and old age pensioners' organizations in Canada hold conventions from time to time at which they prepare briefs and submit requests to us. The items set out in this motion are the things for which they are asking, and even if some of them go a bit far, even if some of them do not harmonize with each other, I think it is perfectly proper that Parliament should be asked to give consideration to what they have suggested. Henee, in my opinion the proposal that this whole matter be referred to a special committee or to one of our standing committees is an appropriate one.
I was amused by the confidence which the new Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance displayed when he told us that one of these days we would be getting the white paper on social security. I hope that in his new position, even though he has held it for only a few days, he is privy to what goes on and knows whereof he speaks. I have to base my knowledge on what I hear out in the open, and out in the open I know that the question of doing something about social security has been in the Speech from the Throne presented to each of the sessions we have had since the election of this government. I know, also, that much work was put into what was known as the Willard report, or perhaps I should say the Willard reports. I know that for quite a while the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) said that consideration was being given to making those reports public. But we have never seen them and the time has been changed two or three times. Instead of getting to see the Willard report or reports, we were told about a year ago that there was to be a government white paper based on the work of Dr. Willard, the Deputy Minister of National Welfare.
When we were first told we would get a white paper, we were promised it would be down soon. Then we were told it would be down some time during the session and for a while this statement was made with the clear implication that we would get it before the House rose for the 1970 summer recess. Later this was modified and the Minister of National Health and Welfare told us we would get it before the House prorogued in October. We pinned him down repeatedly and he respond-
October 5, 1970

ed straightforwardly by telling the House we would have it before Parliament prorogued in October.
Well, we are now in October and know we shall prorogue the day after tomorrow. But when I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) during the oral question period this afternoon whether this particular commitment would be kept, he in effect said no; he told us there would be no white paper before the end of the present session. However, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance still thinks there will be a white paper, maybe next session or the one after that, or during the election campaign of 1972. I know that when I asked when we were likely to see this white paper, the Prime Minister did not tell me. Maybe it is so white it is blank; so white that there is nothing on it. The Prime Minister said, instead, that the matter might be mentioned in the Speech from the Throne on Thursday. Well, it was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne last year and the year before. I am not encouraged by these references and these promises. The fact of the matter is that nothing is being done.
Another thing I found amusing was the way in which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) have stood up the principle of universality. My hon. friend from Surrey, who is a realist, tried to deal with the situation we find today, a hodge-podge of old age security arrangements, in an effort to get something done to help the old people now. The two hon. members who spoke after he sat down did not like that proposal because it would interfere with the pure principle of universality to which they say we were all committed back in 1952.
Mr. Speaker, I could take that line of argument a lot easier if I did not feel the hypocrisy behind it. It is the very government sitting over there which violated that principle by introducing the guaranteed income supplement and telling us we must move from universality to selectivity. Which way does my hon. friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance want it? He wants universality when my hon. friend from Surrey tries to do a little patch work, but when we ask for universality we are told that we have to go for selectivity. The net result is that nothing gets done. We have not seen the Willard Report. We have not seen the white paper within the time it was promised we would receive it. All we are given now is the chance to look at the Speech from the Throne
Old Age Security Pensions on Thursday morning. We will see what we get on Thursday, but I am afraid I have been around here long enough to know that if the election is to be in 1972 there is not going to be very much in a Speech from the Throne in 1970.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
This situation, Mr. Speaker, is a serious one. It is said that we are in the affluent age. All sorts of people are getting increases in wages, salaries, pensions and so on. We have done some of that around this place. We did it for the retired civil servants, retired members of the RCMP and retired armed forces personnel. Today a report by the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications was tabled. This is a good report. Indeed, it recommends that the same thing be done for retired employees of Canadian National Railways and calls upon other companies, both public and private, to follow suit. There are 800,000 old age pensioners in Canada today, senior citizens who have made their contribution to the life of this nation, who are so poor and so hard up that they qualify for the guaranteed income supplement. Indeed, there are 400,000 of them who qualify for the full amount, which really means they have virtually nothing at all. If this Parliament and the members in it care for our older people and have any heart at all, it is time to do something about them instead of just nitpicking at this resolution. What our pensioners need is an increase in their pensions to $150 a month, and they need it now.
I commend my hon. friend for bringing this subject before Parliament today and I regret there have not been any positive statements by the spokesmen for the Liberal party and the Conservative party.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) reminds me somewhat of a woman who knows she is going to give birth in a few months. If she gets over anxious, it may happen, under certain circumstances, and it often does, that she will have her child permaturely, with the many difficulties, medical and hospital expenses, that follow.
According to him, it is most urgent to table that famous white paper on social security promised some time ago. If he can wait a few more days, he will be greatly pleased. I know that he has already introduced a motion simi-
8786
October 5, 1970

Old Age Security Pensions lar to that brought in by the member for Surrey (Mr. Mather) this afternoon, asking that old age pension benefits be increased and amended.
I know that today the aged, people over 65, have perhaps been forgotten, as they are want to remind us. This is so true that efforts are made to force them to retire before they are 60. In my opinion, increasing the old age pensions is not enough, nor is granting tax relief at a certain income level. I do not think that the problem will be solved by granting them a supplement when the cost of living goes up. This is only a poultice. The wound is deeper. Our senior citizens deserve more from the government than what they have been getting until now.
These are nothing but stop gap measures. In this country a most important science has been forgotten which is gerontology, the science of old age. The National Research Council is not granting any subsidy to our scientists so as to enable them to find some way of slowing down aging, so that our old people could remain productive in Canada.
This is so true in Canada that people 65 and over made up 8.6 per cent of the population in 1960. Within 10 years this percentage will be 10 to 12 per cent. What are we going to do with these people who are still strong, who can easily be retained, who are able to work and produce? In fact, if these elderly people who can still do some work in Canada are removed from the labour market, Canadian productivity is automatically reduced. And if productivity is reduced, another segment of the population will have to work more in order to provide equal wages or pensions to all.
Today the average life expectancy is 72 years and I am sure that 10 years from now, thanks to medical science, it shall reach 76 or 77 years. These people will enjoy perfect health and will be of use to society.
I think that the whole social security program must be reviewed and if after hearing every request and every grievance the government tried to produce a document based on facts and new data of a modem society, so that we may consider together what exactly must be done, it is because it wished for a solution to the problem of the elderly citizens of our country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Parliamentary Secretary. The hour appointed for the consideration of pri-

vate members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair, to resume the same at eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-184, to exempt certain shipping conference practices from the provisions of the Combines Investigations Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, and motion No. 2 (Mr. Homer).
Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, when the House went into private members' hour at five o'clock we were left with two cliff-hangers in this debate. The first related to how some 40 conferences could decide on identical rates between Canadian ports on the east coast to British ports and, second-and this is the cliff-hanger of particular interest to me and my area-why the rates from Halifax or Saint John to the United Kingdom should be the same as rates from points on the St. Lawrence east of Montreal, when we seem to have a 300-nauti-cal mile geographic advantage.
I related that attempts had been made, without success, to find out why this should be so when it flies in the face of all reason. I quoted evidence given by the former director of the Port of Halifax Commission. I turn now to remarks made by Mr. Craig S. Dickson, executive manager of the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission. He wrote the chairman of the Transport Committee on May 8 and I quote him in part as follows:
With reference to the proposed legislation set out in Bill C-184, this commission is in general agreement. It does wish, however, to draw to the committee's attention that there is one facet of the ocean shipping conference practices which works against the Maritime ports and exporters and importers of Atlantic Canada. This practice is the assessment of the same ocean rates to or from the
October 5, 1970

Maritime ports of Halifax, N.S., and Saint John, N.B., as from the inland ports of the St. Lawrence River, Montreal, P.Q., and east thereof. Despite the Maritime ports being geographically closer to most foreign countries than the St. Lawrence ports are, the rates of the ocean shipping conferences give no recognition of this fact.
Subsequently he stated:
The incongruity of this situation is emphasized when by section 16 of the National Transportation Act carriers subject to that act are required not to create through their actions prejudice to the public interest which goes "beyond any disadvantage that may be deemed to be inherent in ... location". At the same time Bill C-184 regularizes the practices of the shipping conferences including their practice of not recognizing the advantage inherent in the location of Maritime exporters and importers using Maritime ports.
On behalf of Maritime exporters and importers, this commission urges the members of this Standing Committee on Transport and Communications to take whatever steps are open to them individually and collectively to persuade the ocean shipping conferences to recognize the geographic advantage of Maritime ports in their ocean rates to and from these ports.
Such a step would be of material assistance to Maritime exporters in improving their export marketing position to the benefit not only of the Atlantic region but to Canada as a whole. Furthermore, the recommendations made herein do not require the expenditure of federal funds. In fact, by encouraging Maritime manufacturers to increase their participation in export markets through lower ocean rates from Maritime ports, there could be a lesser demand for expenditures under existing transportation programs in Atlantic Canada.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, he is not asking that any money be spent on the problem; he is just asking that a little common sense be exercised in dealing with the problem. As we get nowhere in unravelling this crazy mystery, may I quote a witness from the shipping conferences who appeared before the committee. He is W. J. McLaughlin, chairman of the Canada-United Kingdom Freight Conference. He told the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Homer):
We admit that the price is uniform and that we agree to the price. We do not deny that.
That statement is taken from the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the committee No. 26, and he is referring to the uniformity of the rates as between St. Lawrence ports and Atlantic ports. The hon. member for Crowfoot asked:
In other words, you are saying that if one of your conference members lowered the rate to Halifax he would be breaking the conference rule after the

Mr. McLaughlin answered:
Basically when a company joins the conference it joins with the full knowledge that it joins a 22478-65i
Shipping Conferences Exemption Act rate-making group for this purpose because there is a wide segment of importers and exporters that demand and require the stability of rates. They prefer this stability of rates.
The hon. member for Crowfoot then said:
You fellows may get the idea that I am against you. I am not. I just admire the way you look after yourselves, because you are certainly not looking after the customers, nor is this bill.
I think my friend the hon. member for Crowfoot summed it up in a nutshell when he said those words. The bill ratifies and applies practices which surely are not in the interest of the Canadian user of shipping services. The other morning I had the horrendous experience of going to a freight handlers' hall in Halifax and seeing that 183 men out of 300 who had shown up for work that morning were disappointed because there was none.
For these reasons I support the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Crowfoot and I reject the philosophy of this bill. Perhaps the only thing that commends the bill to me is that its provisions are for three years and at the end of that period the shipping conferences will have to come here again. I hope at that time they will be able to say why this ridiculous practice is carried on. I hope they will then be able to answer the question that was asked several times that particular day and to which no reply was given.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancas-ter):: Mr. Speaker, although the minister may not agree with me, I wish this bill had been considered even more extensively in the committee, because like all other pieces of legislation that we deal with in a brief amendment way, it brings in a lot of worms. One of the matters covered by this bill has been dealt with very well by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) and I will not go into it again. The hon. member pointed out the objection that the people of Halifax and Saint John have to equality of rates with Montreal vis-a-vis European ports, and that for some mysterious reason this fact has not been explained. For many years the shipping conferences have set rates which are the same, even though from Halifax and Saint John a much shorter ocean haul is involved. We hope that in some way our words will be noted by those in the shipping conferences and that rectification will be made.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
I also agree with the remarks made by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) in a general way concerning this piece of legisla-
October 5, 1970

Shipping Conferences Exemption Act tion, and I support his amendment. I cannot make up my mind which would be the better body to which to refer problems of this nature. I do not know whether it would be better to send them to Mr. Henry of the Combines Investigation Branch, or Mr. Pick-ersgill of the Canadian Transport Commission. I think it is a case of the lesser of two evils.
Personally, I believe the Canadian Transport Commission should be the better qualified body to deal with an examination of the rates which might come under the purview of this bill. I believe that commission has the means with which to deal quickly with a problem and should be able to provide a hearing for injured parties. However, we all know the Canadian Transport Commission and Mr. Pickersgill. I shall leave that point without further comment.
This debate gives me an opportunity to plug once again for greater attention by members of this House to the question of a new marine policy for Canada. I hope the minister and his counterpart, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), will bring forward at this session legislation that will be of benefit to those like myself who for many years have promoted the idea of a merchant marine for Canada. I do not wish to become involved in detail in this conference question, for the benefit of those who do not understand it, because it is very complicated as has been said.
In order to land its products cheaply in competition with other countries, Canada is dependant upon exporting at cheap ocean freight rates. For example, we must have cheap ocean freight rates to Europe. We do not get the cheap rates that we should, and yet we are involved in a conference which sets rates. In this conference we do not have anybody in power. The way to obtain bargaining power at these conference tables is to have our own ships so that we can back up our talk.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Miller Bell: I shall not go into the great statements that have been made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) and the new Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) about how necessary it is to have a presence in the north in order to exert our sovereignty. I simply leave the House with the thought that there is only one way to establish our presence in the north, and that is to have our own ships and send our men up there. There is no other way.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add a few comments to the discussion of this amendment to Bill C-184. I shall be very brief because I believe the minister wishes to make a few comments. Perhaps he wishes to close out the debate on the amendment. I really cannot see what a man with the perception and political skill of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), with his political roots in the east, and having such competence would find objectionable in the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). I will sit down right now if the minister is prepared to stand in his place and say he is prepared to accept the amendment.
Without going into the whole complicated area of shipping conference arrangements and practices as reviewed, diagnosed and defined in the Restrictive Trade Practices report which has already been referred to and tabled, I say very briefly there is no doubt that this is a cartel and that the Shipping Act is proposed to exempt certain of these companies from the Combines Investigation Act. Because cheap transportation is necessary to get Canadian goods to the world markets, I suppose this in part is a move ahead.
The point, however, is that in the east people often hear politicians especially say that the Atlantic and Nova Scotia form the wharf of the Atlantic and that we are in the middle of the deep blue because we are so close to European markets and the markets of Africa and other places. Yet in reality, because of the practices of these shipping conference companies there is no more advantage in being in Halifax than there is in being in Montreal, with all respect to Montreal. So we in the east feel somewhat aggrieved in that internally we have discrimination in respect of distance and externally, when we endeavour to sell our products in markets across the world, we do not have the advantage to which our geography has made us captive.
It is for that reason I cannot understand why the Minister of Transport, be he from any area, let alone one who has roots in the east, would be against an amendment that really does not go too far but, hopefully, would provide a little relief for those who would be greatly affected by the monopolistic and/or discriminatory rates which might be set up. I do not think there is any doubt about what this shipping conference does. I do not intend to read all of it, because the minister must have read part of it, but I want to repeat what the director said. I am refer-
October 5. 1970
ring to page 3 of the document headed "Shipping Conference Arrangements and Practices." He said, with no qualification, that these companies are parties to a combination in relation to commodities which may be the subject of trade or commerce and-leaving out certain things-that these combinations prevent and lessen competition.
Further on in the paragraph he says that these companies have conspired, combined, agreed or arranged to prevent or lessen unduly competition in the ocean transportation of those articles. The minister himself would be the first to agree that one of the objects, if not the main object, obviously is to set a rate and that one of the adverse effects of an agreement to set a rate is to lessen competition, so that we do not have the free flow on the market by which to define what it is right to have in a given circumstance.
As one who comes from the east I support this amendment which at least would start to shed some light and would, hopefully, make those who conspire to reduce or eliminate competition come before a government somewhere or the Canadian Transport Commission and explain their move. All that is necessary is to read-as the minister and other persons in his department have done-the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission's study of this problem. It reviews the practices in other countries. I shall not take the time of the House to review them tonight. However, the United States and Japan, two very large countries which have a large international trade, have taken government action to see that an international cartel or combination of cartels must file their agreements. In effect, they must substantiate them and if there is any discrimination there is a forum to which the natives of the country can apply for redress. As I understand it, the amendment of the hon. member for Crowfoot does not even begin to go that far, but at least it throws some light on this type of agreement and we would not have what seems to be the fundamental paradox as we struggle into the second half of the twentieth century, of the east having all the disadvantage of distance in our internal trade and having no geographical advantage in our external trade. This is a situation that I find very difficult to accept.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I will close on this note. Agriculture was the subject of a little commotion in the House this afternoon, and quite rightly so because it was caused by a most important matter concerning Bill C-197, with which this House will
Shipping Conferences Exemption Act deal and which came into question this afternoon. I am referring to the feed freight policy. Some members of the cabinet do not believe there should be any such thing as a feed freight policy to haul feed grain across the country so that viable sections of Canada can develop our agricultural products. Fortunately that problem was diverted. We did not have to make a decision in the House last year on the matter, but there is a time limit on this problem which affects our internal trade. Here we are dealing with our external trade, and the east seems to be getting a raw deal. I hope the minister can explain the paradox that we have all the disadvantages, because of our position, in internal trade and none of the advantages that being the wharf of the Atlantic should give us.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I did not anticipate that at this stage of the bill we would be in fact re-covering, as it were, many of the issues that were not only debated at length when the bill was first introduced but were dealt with at considerable length at the committee stage. I am not suggesting there is anything improper about the procedure and the discussion that has taken place tonight, but the fact is that we have been over this ground many times.
I do not want to take the time of the House to comment in detail on the references made by the last two speakers with regard to the apparent disparity that it is alleged exists between Halifax and Saint John, on the one hand, and the port of Montreal, for example, on the other. I can only say that I am somewhat surprised that someone representing the Montreal region has not seen fit to comment on this question. I am delighted to hear it, because the gentle weight of the criticism that has been aimed in my direction recently is that I have altogether favoured the east coast ports as opposed to Montreal. One has only to look at the wide range of comments coming these days from the shipping community and related interests in Montreal to appreciate that their point of view is not shared entirely by the three distinguished representatives from the Maritime provinces who have spoken tonight.
I do not believe it is possible to relate all the problems that are involved, in terms of the setting of rates, to the one issue that is before the House at the present time. The fact is that many of us, myself included, find it exceedingly difficult to understand fully how all forms of transportation arrive at the rate

8790	COMMONS
Shipping Conferences Exemption Act structures that they have. The examples that have been provided by hon. members from the Atlantic provinces have, of course, been repeated on earlier occasions by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) in a different context when dealing with freight rates to the Prairie provinces, which do not indeed involve foreign shipping but are confined entirely to Canadian modes of transportation. At the same time they find that the rates, for example between Toronto, Montreal and Regina or Edmonton, are higher than if the same quantity and the same type of goods are shipped to Vancouver. These appear to the laymen to be obvious inconsistencies in the rate formulae which have been established by the various modes of transportation.
I can only say to the House that despite innumerable explorations by committees of the House and various other bodies, and despite a wide variety of royal commissions and studies of one nature or another, they have invariably come back to supporting the various forms of transportation in their ratesetting formulae. I think the National Transportation Act of 1967 made it clear that the competitive factors were to dominate, in terms of the establishment of various rates throughout Canada. Of course, if we are to remove some of what I regard as the inequities in some of the present rate structures, it appears that we will have to use mechanisms other than the National Transportation Act to do it.
However, may I point out with your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, that this is an aside and it is not germane to the matter now before the House. I mention it because, naturally, I share the questioning of members opposite as to why there is this differential in rates. But I do say-and I think they would be prepared to agree-that in recent times we have done a great deal to enhance what the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) has called the wharf of the Atlantic. I may say that it is now a much better wharf than it was even a few years ago, if one looks at the port of Halifax. Here I think we have to do a little horn-blowing, not as members of the government but indeed as a Parliament and as people from the area, and we have to admit that many tens of millions of dollars are being expended in the Atlantic provinces by the National Harbours Board and other agencies, including, for example, the province of Nova Scotia and Canadian National Railways. In Saint John, New Brunswick, a similar kind of expenditure is being undertaken.

DEBATES	October 5, 1970
So I repeat that we do have this inconsistency, which is a perfectly natural one when one considers the areas from which various members of this House come. For my part I am pleased to have had this endorsement, or indeed even criticism from Atlantic Canada, because I can now use it in rebuttal against those in other parts of the country who, quite contrary to what has been said this afternoon or this evening, have maintained that we are ignoring upper Canada in favour of what is undoubtedly the best part of the country. So much for that point.
I want to speak for a moment directly on the amendment of the hon. member for Crowfoot because I understand his position and I am not entirely in disagreement with the principles he is seeking to establish. But I suggest to him that there is a complication, and I think the hon. member will understand why it is not possible to support his amendment. He himself gave one reason for it, and at the same time indicated a certain inconsistency on the part of those who oppose sections of this bill, when he indicated this afternoon that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Regina Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) was in fact at odds with the one being proposed by the hon. member for Crowfoot, for a very simple reason.
The quandary I face is demonstrated obviously by both these gentlemen. One says, "Let the CTC have absolutely nothing to do with this." He says, "We want to take it out of their hands completely. On the other hand, the hon. member for Crowfoot says, "We will not only keep the CTC in the picture but we want to enhance their responsibility far more than even the government is prepared to do." It is clear that we cannot meet both points of view, and in fact the truth of the matter is that neither point of view is on all fours with the basic objectives of this bill. The hon. member for Crowfoot has made clear what he wishes to have done. His amendment reads:
For the purposes of this act, a tariff, patronage contract, arrangement, agreement or contract shall not be valid unless and until approved by an order of the commission as just and reasonable and in the public interest-
Here I would like to draw his attention to the following words:
-as defined in section 16 of the National Transportation Act-
The definition of "public interest" in section 16 (1) (b) of the National Transportation Act reads as follows:
the expression "public interest" includes, without limiting the generality thereof, the public interest as described in section 1.
October 5, 1970	COMMONS
If I can now take hon. members through the bill still further, section 1 of the National Transportation Act is a declaration of the national transportation policy, and that policy rejects, within limits, rate approval as a means of regulation. Therefore, the effect of the proposed amendment would be to reverse this aspect of the national transportation policy and so, in effect, frustrate the law. From long experience I have known that the last thing my hon. friend from Crowfoot would wish to do would be to frustrate the law, even in a small way.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Bill C-184 deals with shipping conferences which, as 1 would like to call to the attention of hon. members, serve Canada's overseas foreign trade. Obviously, in every instance where it is foreign trade of which we are speaking there is at least one other country involved. A statute which, in these circumstances, requires a formal finding of public interest in the various matters cited in the proposed amendment could, because of opposing views at the other end of the route, over which we do not have control, result in grave and unnecessary international difficulties and become an impediment to trade.
I would point out that even the hon. member for Halifax, who made some very sound observations, in the quotations he put forward indicated that some of the chief spokesmen for Maritime Canada had shown they were in agreement with the basic objectives of the bill. I suggest that anyone who has experience with shipping will recognize it is quite impossible, when dealing internationally, to have unilateral power in the hands of an organization such as the CTC, or even the restrictive trade practices agency, to deal with such a matter in the way proposed by the amendment. The proposed amendment would require formal approval by the commission of a very considerable volume of material. I doubt, Mr. Speaker, if hon. members will consider with favour a proposal to create a bureaucracy of major proportions whose time would largely be taken up by disputes and litigation with foreign shipping companies supported by their own national governments, and all to no discernible Canadian purpose.
These matters were thought through very carefully. As I have said from the very first moment I made reference to this measure in the House, I do what I am doing here with a measure of reluctance because this is not the kind of measure that is totally protective of
DEBATES	8791
Shipping Conferences Exemption Act the Canadian interest, or of any other kind of interest.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You've said a mouthful!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: We have never denied that for a moment. We have simply conceded the reality of a shipping conference. Hon. members were quite accurate in the quotes which they gave from page 3 of the report on shipping conference practices. But going to page 100 I would like to quote these words of the same commissioner, who said:
The commission considers therefore that the lines in the Canada-U.K. trades should be allowed to continue such arrangements as are necessary for the efficient handling of Canada's exports and imports, subject to appropriate safeguards for the public interest.
We have put in appropriate safeguards to the degree that it is possible for us to do so. This afternoon the Leader of the New Democratic Party asked me whether there was any requirement for action on the part of the CTC when these various matters were filed with them. I ask him now to recall that I was speaking from memory when I replied. Subsequently I checked into this matter, Mr. Speaker, and I have discovered that in the first instance all such tariffs are available for public scrutiny to anybody who wishes to see them. I also find that there is a responsibility placed on the Minister of Transport himself to report annually on these matters. I could go on to indicate various other ways in which action can be initiated in the event that there is any obvious breach of the intentions of this legislation. From the research I have done since the House rose at six o'clock, I personally am satisfied that the necessary safeguards are in the legislation.
I would also point out, as I indicated previously, that the whole structure of these proposals is designed to ensure that at no time can there be more than a 15 per cent differential between the rates charged by those who are prepared to join up or, in a sense, become captive to a shipping conference and the rates charged by those who choose to go the route of independence. On all these grounds I believe this explanation covers the points made by the Leader of the New Democratic Party.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for this information, but is there any person in the government, the minister, the chairman of the CTC, or any other official who has the direct responsibility of asking for an investigation by the Restrictive Trade Practices

Shipping Conferences Exemption Act Commission where there is at least the appearance of collusion by the shipping companies?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I believe I can answer the hon. gentleman in this way. In the first instance, as I have said, the figures and documents filed with the CTC are a matter of public record. From that point on the CTC, in the normal procedure, would advise the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. But in any event, this bill does not remove from the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission the major sanctions which are still lying with them. The CTC regulates the filing requirements and may institute prosecutions for breaches of those requirements. They can do that. Then we have the restrictive Trade Practices branch which also is capable of taking action under this new legislation.
At the risk of redundancy, Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier I believe we have protected the public interest to the maximum extent possible. With other Atlantic region members, I do not believe this is by any means a solution to inequalities or differentials in rate structures. This is a matter which is constantly under review and I would be more than pleased at any time to accommodate hon. members in getting more information from both railways and shipping companies as to how rate structures are implemented. I suggest the best time to do that is when these various bodies appear before the appropriate committees of the House.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, the minister left the impression that there would be only a 15 per cent differential between the rate charged by a shipping company enjoying the patronage of a contract with the shipping conference and the rate charged to a shipper attempting to ship outside the conference. Would there still be only a 15 per cent differential between that rate and the rate charged by a tramp ship?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I would have to get more specific information on that point. It is not the hon. member's fault that he has not stated his question in a proper way; I am afraid it is the fault of my lack of comprehension. But section 3(b)(ii) states that the premium that may be charged to a shipper who elects not to bind himself to a conference is limited to 15 per cent of the rate applicable to the shipper who does so bind himself.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, may I direct another question to the minister?

October 5, 1970


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may direct another question if the minister is prepared
to reply.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Is it not correct that for the purposes of this legislation the Canadian Transport Commission has no authority whatsoever except for penalties with respect to failure to file documents, and that for the purposes of this legislation, under the Combines Investigation Act only the Restrictive Trade Practices branch has authority, and the CTC has none?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I think that once again we are reopening the debate. All I can do is repeat what I said earlier this evening. The major sanctions lie with the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, but it is the CTC that regulates the filing requirements. It determines what the filing requirements are to be and may institute prosecutions for breaches of those requirements. It is true that this is only in the case of a breach of the filing requirements, but I repeat it is the commission which may direct any conference, or take action against any conference, so that the power of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission is not reduced or obliterated by this legislation. What is provided for here is exactly what the hon. member is proposing in his amendment, except that he says the documents should be filed in the same place. It is our view that since the CTC must deal with both domestic traffic and overseas traffic in terms of their relationship one to the other, the intermodality of the traffic and various other matters of this kind, it is useful to have the CTC play this particular role as laid down in the legislation. If I am not sitting down now, Mr. Speaker, I hereby serve notice that I am about to sit down.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, while it is correct to say that Peace River does not now constitute a port served by shipping lines, such as it might have been had it not been for conspiratorial collusion between the province of British Columbia and a former federal Liberal government, so that it is now very difficult to find enough water there to float any kind of a canoe, I wish to state that I have an interest in this legislation for other reasons.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
The eloquence of the minister was effective to justify, probably, the need to introduce legislation of this kind. But at the same time, Mr. Speaker, the minister did not remove
Ociober 5, 1970

from my mind the doubts which I have had since I first read the bill. There is a need for some safeguard to be left in the bill, a need which I think is fulfilled by the amendment now placed before the House by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). I hope to get some support from hon. members opposite, as I am sure does the hon. member for Crowfoot. He has no restrictions and I think he would accept support from anywhere, even from hon. members opposite.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Indeed I would.


Gerald William Baldwin: He has a different approach from that of the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle), who at the committee stage said, as reported at page 26 of the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications of Tuesday, May 12, 1970:
-I am quite sure that the act would not be presented to Parliament if there was not deemed to be a real need-
Mr. Speaker, what simple and childlike faith it takes for an hon. member to make this assertion that he is sure the government would not present it if there was not a great need for it! I think this is the simplistic and easy way in which to approach the legislation. I would be as well justified in taking the opposite view, that when this government presents legislation I am automatically suspicious of it, though in the last few sessions they have passed a few bills which justify the time of the House. I hope we will get some support for this very sensible amendment which, as the hon. member for Crowfoot and other of my colleagues point out, provides some real safeguards and securities against the exemption of shipping lines and conferences from the provisions of the restrictive trade practices legislation.
I am sure hon. members of the government party who were at London recently and able to participate in that heady and exhilarating independence which permitted them to pass certain resolutions there-even some of the former Parliamentary Secretaries whose assessment of the leadership of the party is a lot less today than it was when the session ended on June 26-might see fit to give consideration to this amendment. The minister poured scorn on the amendment and the parliamentary motives of the hon. member for Crowfoot when he said that it is an attempt to frustrate the law. Mr. Speaker, this is what we are here for. When we see bad law, we are here to frustrate it and to try to secure
Shipping Conferences Exemption Act change and amendment. If in doing so we bring to the words "public interest" a new concept, a concept which is sensible and desirable, then the hon. member for Crowfoot and those of us who support the amendment are engaged in operating in the public interest. The amendment is a safeguard against the complete removal of the shipping lines from the operations of the combines investigation legislation and regulations.
The minister has made a pretty good case for saying that prima facie it is perfectly logical to suggest that at first blush we do remove the shipping lines and shipping conferences from the operation of the act. I will go along with that, but only if I know that in the legislation there is some provision to protect the retention of the principles, if necessary, of the combines legislation. But this does not appear to be the case, and the hon. member for Crowfoot seeks to make it available through this new section 8. What have we got without it? True enough, Mr. Speaker, under the combines legislation the director is brought in and authorized under certain circumstances and required under other circumstances, to make an inquiry. Such inquiry will operate under section 8 of the Combines Investigation Act or under section 19.
I am not going to burden this House with the details of those two sections, but a simple examination indicates that all that can be done is to make an inquiry. No effective action can flow from holding the inquiry, nor as a result of recommendations which may be made at the conclusion of the inquiry. The director can hold an inquiry and say, "This is not very nice and I do not like what the shipping lines are doing." He can make his report which will appear in due course, maybe six months, a year or a year and a half later. It appears in the annual report and may be read by members of this House and the public. But that is as far as it can go. Nothing can be done. It may well be, under conditions which may exist two, three or four years from now that a situation may arise wherein it would be apparent to hon. members of this House and the public that one shipping line, having filed its rates pursuant to the terms of this legislation, was engaged in practices not in the public interest of the people of Canada. What could we do about it? Without the provisions of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Crowfoot we could do nothing. This is basically why the amendment must be supported.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

October 5, 1970
Shipping Conferences Exemption Act


Gerald William Baldwin: There is no question about it. It is all very well for the minister and others to say that in three years from now we can look at this legislation again. This is not the case at all, Mr. Speaker. All that happens is that the act expires three years from the date it comes into force or at such later date as, before the end of that period, may be fixed by proclamation. What happens to the proclamation? It is laid before Parliament-not for debate or discussion, but simply tabled, and there is nothing we can do about it. If in fact the legislation did expire at the end of three years, or if in fact the proclamation was to be tabled in this House and Parliament as a whole debated the proclamation and decided by a vote following suitable debate that it was proper for the act to be extended, I would not mind. But what is going to happen? Knowing this government and how it operates-and it is quite an operator-some time before the end of three years, very quietly and as secretly as possible a proclamation will be tabled and that will be the end of it.
Mr. Speaker, none of the virtues of which the hon. minister has made so much will be lost by this amendment, it does provide the safety valve that if it appears that the legislation is not operating in the public interest or to the best advantage of the people of Canada, there will be an opportunity for the commission to examine and make its recommendations accordingly. This is the safety feature which we must have.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Under these circumstances I earnestly ask hon. members on the government side, who I hope have come back determined to do their duty with a high sense of privilege and responsibility, to support all good measures. I hope members on both sides of the House will seize this opportunity to support the very useful amendment of the hon. member for Crowfoot.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt motion No. 1, moved by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: The question is now on motion No. 2 (Mr. Horner). Is it the wish of the House to proceed with the division without ringing the bells?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: that Bill C-184, to exempt certain shipping conference practices from the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time?


Gerald William Baldwin: By leave, now.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


An hon. Member:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY


Stanley Ronald Basford: that Bill S-25, respecting Hudson's Bay Company, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: again, Canada must look northward. Canada's destiny is northward bound. We must unlock the gates of northern opportunity, turn the eyes of Canada northward and say to young Canadians, "Form your snowmobile brigades and go north, young men".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot match the oratory of my friend the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski). I confess I do not feel inclined to try to do so when one realizes that not only has the Hudson's Bay Company played a part in developing this country but has done a fair amount of skinning of our people, both in the past and in the present. Having said that, however, I think I shall confine myself to recognizing that there is a certain historicity about what we are doing. We are in fact agreeing to the transfer of the head office of the company not only from England to Canada but from London to Winnipeg, and not only to Winnipeg but to the heart of Winnipeg North Centre. So I am very happy to indicate our support of this bill.
I suppose one reason we do not take off into flights of oratory is that we realize that merely to transfer the head office is not everything. There is the whole question of ownership and who makes the profit out of an organization such as this. Hon. members who have been following the news of the last weekend would not be surprised if I were to make a speech about the whole question of foreign ownership and the desirability of certain other head offices being transferred to Canada. It is not only a question of transferring head offices but of patriating the ownership of our own resources and economy. If this might be looked upon as a first halting feeble step in this direction, we welcome it. But there is a long way to go.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am sure Your Honour and all members of the House have been moved by the eloquence of the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) in the historical narration he gave of the activities of the Hudson's Bay Company. I am sure we are appreciative of his eloquence on this occasion. I am sure, also, that the reference by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to skinning had reference to the activities of the company
Establishment of Canadian Corporation as the largest fur trading company in the world.
For the sake of the record I simply wish to outline some of the corporate details of the bill in order to explain briefly what it is intended to do, simply because I will be moving at the appropriate time that there be unanimous consent to deal with the bill in Committee of the Whole this evening. Now that 95 per cent of the assets of the company and 98 per cent of its employees are located in Canada, the company on attaining its 300th birth date has expressed the wish to become a "Canadian company". This calls for a transfer of jurisdiction which is an unusual procedure and, as a matter of fact, we know of almost no precedent. Because the company operated under a royal charter granted some 300 years ago, it was necessary to devise a procedure to cover the present instance. The Privy Council of the United Kingdom, by supplementary letters patent issued on May 29, 1970, revoked all amendments to and all sections of the original charter of 300 years ago except the original incorporating section. These supplementary letters patent permit the company to continue under the authority of the government of Canada. On the same day last spring the Canadian Privy Council issued letters patent under the Great Seal of Canada under the original royal charter.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
The effect of that procedure is to continue the English corporate entity into a Canadian one. In Canada our commercial corporations are being administered under a general act of parliament, the Canada Corporations Act. Opportunity was taken at that time in the spring to change the shares of the company from one English pound par value to no par value shares. A number of restrictions are imposed by the letters patent on the transfer of shares. These are provided for in the bill. This has reference to what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had to say. Not more than 25 per cent of the shares may be held by non-residents of Canada or the United Kingdom. For a five-year transitional period from May 29, 1970, not more than 10 per cent of the shares may be held by any one person or associated group of persons.
I should mention in passing, Mr. Speaker, that 10 per cent of the outstanding shares are presently held in Canada, 86 per cent in the United Kingdom and 4 per cent in other parts of the world. The purpose of introducing the bill before the House is to bring the company incorporated under special letters patent
October 5, 1970
8798	COMMONS
Establishment of Canadian Corporation granted by Canada under the Canada Corporations Act. As hon. members see, the bill is rather short because very few exemptions from the Canada Corporations Act have been requested by the company.
I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move into Committee of the Whole and deal with the bill this evening, if it is the will of the House to do so. I thank hon. members for agreeing to deal with this somewhat technical corporate matter at this late day in this session, and I hope we can dispose of it this evening.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the motion for second reading be put and that the reference be to the Committee of the Whole, rather than to the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we could call it ten o'clock. There has been some discussion on this. We do not plan to hold up the bill, but tomorrow one or two hon. members would like briefly to state their great exultation over this bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there agreement on the part of hon. members to calling it ten o'clock?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I appreciate the spirit in which the hon. member put this suggestion forward, but I wonder whether the hon. members whom he mentioned would be agreeable to speaking on third reading tomorrow, so we could pass the committee stage this evening.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Laniel in the chair.
Albert Béchard: House in Committee of the Whole on Bill S-25, an act respecting Hudson's Bay Company.
On clause 2-Company continued.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to speak on the bill but I am curious as to what special privileges this type of legislation gives to the Hudson's Bay Company that are not available to other companies. Obviously a company chartered in the early eighteenth century under Queen Victoria-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Charles II.


William Arnold Peters: I may be out by a hundred years, but a hundred years more or less in the past does not matter. Charles II would give many more concessions to such a company seeking a charter in this manner. I wonder what special concessions this bill gives the company. We are not really dealing with the concessions to which we are agreeing. All we are agreeing to in this bill is the legal paraphernalia of establishing a company with the same privileges as in a charter. We are changing the concessions given by Charles II at that time and continued by Queen Victoria by order of the Privy Council. We are now doing in Canada that which we do not normally do. I am wondering whether we are providing the company with all the old privileges they had as a free trading company almost in a land of their own, or are they bound by all the other considerations that are normally conceded by a company applying for letters patent as a Canadian corporation?


Stanley Ronald Basford: That is the reason we have the legislation before the House. The corporate entity was continued by the cancellation of the letters patent by the U.K. Privy Council, as I explained in my statement on second reading. Then the corporation as a corporate entity was continued by the special letters patent issued by the Canadian Privy Council on May 29 of this year. The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that no doubt is left as to what laws govern this corporate entity which is a somewhat unusual one. If the hon. member will refer to clause 2, line 20 he will see the words:
-for the purpose of continuing the company as a body corporate and politic incorporated by royal charter and subject to the laws of Canada,
So that the corporate entity we are continuing here and providing for under the laws of Canada is subject to the laws of Canada. The only exemptions granted are those exemptions-I will refer to them in a minute-provided for in clauses 4 and 5, which relate to technical matters exempting them from certain sections of the Canada Corporations Act. The purpose of this bill is to continue the company subject to the laws of Canada, as stated in clause 2.


William Arnold Peters: I thank the minister for his explanation. I realize that this is a legislative process to enforce a Privy Council order which continued the order of the Privy Council of Great Britain which was similar. When we incorporate a company by legislation we normally ask for certain considerations from
October 5, 1970

the company. In fact, most of the ones with which I have been familiar over the years have been under the Companies Act. A great many concessions were made which normally would not be made today. I ask whether those concessions are still considered. For instance, when the Queen came to Canada not long ago there was a certain price for the charter, and many concessions have been given every time royalty has come to Canada. Are we still maintaining those kinds of concessions?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, Mr. Chairman. The charter granted by the letters patent passed by the United Kingdom this spring provided that the affairs of the company be regulated in the future and such provision in that regard as may be made by the Queen through the Governor General of Canada by and with the advice of the Privy Council of Canada. So we provided in the letters patent-which I have here if hon. members want to look at them- for the continuation of the company. This bill provides for the kind of exemptions it has, and they are spelled out in the bill. They refer to very technical corporate matters in clauses 4 and 5 of the bill.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Mr. Gilbert:: Mr. Chairman, in his opening remarks the minister said that 95 per cent of the assets were in Canada and that 98 per cent of the employees of the company worked in Canada. Could he give us a breakdown of the ownership of the company? Is it 100 per cent owned by English people, and does he intend to bring forth any provisions with regard to limiting this ownership, giving Canadians 51 per cent control so that we might be able to control our destiny in this respect? Further, is he contemplating that 100 per cent of the profits will remain in Canada so that we may improve our growth?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, so far as ownership is concerned, in my speech on second reading I mentioned that 10 per cent of the outstanding shares are presently held in Canada, 86 per cent are held in the United Kingdom and 4 per cent in other parts of the world. There is also provision under the letters patent that not more than 25 per cent of the shares may be held by non-residents of Canada and of the United Kingdom and, further, that for a five-year transitional period from May 29 of this year not more than 10 per cent of the shares may be held by one person or any associated group of persons.
Those are exemptions provided for in clause 5(2), which has reference to section 38
Establishment of Canadian Corporation of the Canada Corporations Act, which section of course provides that the shares of a public company shall be freely transferrable. The special provision that no more than 25 per cent of the shares can be held by nonresidents, and for the transitional period no person or group can hold more than 10 per cent, is provided in clause 5(2).


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that the minister said that he has the charter issued by the federal government, in order to assist the hon. member for Timis-kaming would the minister be prepared to table the charter so that all of us can be apprised of this very significant and important document and its contents?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, I do not think I can table it while we are in committee. I will be happy to do so when the Speaker returns to the chair.


Albert Béchard: Order. The minister cannot table the document while we are in committee. This can be done afterwards, when Mr. Speaker is in the Chair.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I would like to have the assurance of the minister that he will proceed in the manner just stated.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The hon. member has that assurance.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, given the complex status of the Hudson's Bay Company, could the minister briefly specify the nature of that status? In other words, does the government feel that it is a proprietary corporation, an agency corporation or a mixed corporation?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, ministers are not supposed to give legal opinions. However, the view is that after passage of this bill it will be a corporate entity incorporated by letters patent of the Canadian Privy Council, subject to all the provisions of the Canada Corporations Act subject only to the exemptions provided for in clauses 4 and 5 of the bill, which are technical, corporate matters of no great importance. It would be a Canadian company incorporated in Canada under letters patent granted by Her Majesty in right of Canada, subject to the provisions of the Canada Corporations Act.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, since it is important for the members of this House to know
October 5, 1970
8800	COMMONS
Establishment of Canadian Corporation what is the status of that company, I wonder if the minister could not ask his legal advisers to state, for the information of the members, whether it is a proprietary corporation, an agency corporation or still a mixed corporation.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am not sure I understood the question. I have just explained the status of the company which is provided for in clause 2 of the bill. Through the translation I got the impression that the question was whether it a joint stock company. That is a term not often used any more. It is a limited company with share capital of no par value. This is a public company incorporated by letters patent issued by Canada in the name of Canada, and subject to the Canada Corporations Act.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, some of my colleagues seem to object to my asking questions, but it seems to me this is a company that has played a vital role in a large part of Canada, even though I would not endorse all the nice remarks that have been made about it. I know that many people are concerned about the privileges which the company had, stemming from the original charter which gave the company half of Canada. It still seems to exercise leasehold rights over a very large area in the Hudson Bay region both in Quebec and in Ontario and operates stores in a very free-wheeling manner, a manner that would be subjected to restrictions if it were established as a normal company.
We are now giving it an exemption from the normal status of a Canadian company by endorsing the Privy Council order from the United Kingdom, and then an order subsequently passed by our Parliament that seems to retain the company's status quo, which was a very definite status quo in the first place. A company factor has the right to marry people, to bury them, and to take up land for various reasons throughout our northern region. I can see how historically we arrived at this situation. If this were a normal incorporation, we

might want to see some changes made. That is why I ask whether this bill carries on all those privileges and, if so, are we perpetuating them through passage of the bill?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this bill is simply to continue a corporate body. Whether the company is operating under a licence or lease, or something somewhere, is a matter for determination. The sole purpose of this bill is to continue the legal entity and to make sure that it is subject to the laws of Canada, a proposition about which there might have been some doubt-


Albert Béchard: Order. It being ten o'clock, shall I rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, when the House was in committee I undertook, when Your Honour returned to the Chair, to table a document. I would now like to table the document, being a copy of the letters patent granted to the company which is the subject matter of the bill before the committee.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I wish to confirm the business for tomorrow. The first item will be as indicated, a motion for concurrence in the Senate amendments to Bill C-4, to be followed by the continuation and completion, I would hope, of the bill now in Committee of the Whole, to be followed by the report stage of the bill respecting the Canada Grains Act.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You won't get her, boy.
At ten o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, October 8, 1970