1971-06-30

TABLING OF EXTRACT FROM MINUTES OF MEETING OF COMMISSIONERS OF INTERNAL ECONOMY, JUNE 29, 1971

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to lay upon the table an extract from the minutes of a meeting of the Commissioners of Internal Economy of the House of Commons held on Tuesday, June 29, 1971.



PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF SPEAKER OF GERMAN BUNDESTAG

Mr, Speaker:: May I bring to the attention of hon. members the presence in the Speaker's gallery of the Speaker of the German Bundestag, Mr. Kai-Uwe von Hassel.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: After spending a few days in western Canada, Mr. Speaker von Hassel is visiting Ottawa at the invitation of the Canadian parliament. He has asked me to transmit to this House in his own name and on behalf of his parliamentary colleagues a message of friendship and good will.

On behalf of the House of Commons, I wish to extend to our most distinguished visitor the heartiest welcome to Canada and to our Canadian Parliament.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Health and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member be seated?
The hon. member indicated to the Chair that he wanted to raise the question of privilege and he was recognized for this purpose. If he has no question of privilege to raise, he will obviously have the opportunity to address his question later.


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out, I rise on a question of privilege concerning the Minister of National Health and Welfare and I hope he will be able to give a more intelligent reply than his Parliamentary Secretary could, having given a meaningless reply to a question I already put to him in the absence of the hon. minister in connection with grievances expressed by employees of the family allowance branch to the effect that for doing the same work civil servants located in the Toronto office receive $1,900 more per year than those of Quebec City because of the minister's method of classification.
The reply to a question I had on the order paper informed me that three classification officers made an inquiry on 65 grievances submitted by the Quebec City employees but that reports on these inquiries are confidential and unavailable both to members and to the public.
So, my question is the following: Does the Department of National Health and Welfare apprehend a scandal if hon. members had access to the investigation reports on grievances-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member may have a question to put, but I will suggest to him that there is no substance to his question of privilege. In fact, I cannot see how his parliamentary privileges have been affected, in the circumstances which he has just brought to the attention of the House.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development-Mr. Watson.

[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of Standing Committee on Public Accounts-Mr. Hales.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
[Stage Direction]
June 30, 1971
Proposed Legislation PROCEDURE AND ORGANIZATION

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Motions:
June 17, 1971-Mr. McCleave:
That the eighth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, presented to the House on Friday, June 11, 1971, be concurred in.
Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Speaker, perhaps this motion could be withdrawn since it now becomes academic.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House give leave to the hon.
member to withdraw his academic motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



ECONOMIC COUNCIL OF CANADA


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I ask the unanimous consent of the House under Standing Order 43 to move a motion on a matter of urgent and
pressing necessity.
This matter concerns the confidence of the government in the Economic Council of Canada, whether the Deputy Minister of Finance, Mr. Simon Reisman, was authorized by his minister, who was then present, to state yesterday before the Senate Committee on National Finance that "after seven years the Economic Council of Canada has run out of steam, is repeating itself and should be revitalized," and whether the government shares these views that its chief economic advisers are out of tune with the times and must be replaced. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave):
That the testimony of the Deputy Minister of Finance before the Senate Committee on National Finance relative to the Economic Council of Canada, its views and operations, and any related question be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs for examination and report, and that the Minister of Finance and his Deputy Minister, Mr. Simon Reisman, be invited to appear to testify on the said matters.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion moved by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) requires the unanimous consent of the House, under the terms of Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent. Therefore, the motion cannot be moved.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACTS, 1867 TO 1965 AMENDMENT RESPECTING READJUSTMENT OF REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Presidenl of the Privy Council) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-257, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965, with respect to the readjustment of representation in the House of Commons.


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


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinlhe) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-258 intituled: "An act to amend the Bank of Canada Act (Braille denomination)".


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, this bill aims at printing banknote denominations in Braille. The government, through this bill, will be in a position to avail itself of modern printing processes in order to assist the blind.


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


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) moved: the first reading of Bill S-9 (from the Senate), to amend the Copyright Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Howard (Skeena): What are the results of the inquiry undertaken by the Minister of National Health and Welfare into the news leak of the report of the Le Dain Commission on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs?


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I

June 30, 1971

wish to inform the House that the inquiry conducted into the news leak of the interim report of the Commission on the non-medical use of drugs provided no valid explanation. It was not possible either to determine who is responsible for disclosing details from the report to the press.


INDUSTRIES ESTABLISHED UNDER THE REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES ACT
Mr. Rynard: 1.	How many Industries have been established across Canada under the Regional Development Incentives Act and in what province are these industries located?
2.	What amounts of money have been expended in the establishing of these industries?
3.	How many of these industries have been totally Canadian-owned and how many are foreign-owned subsidiaries?
4.	What was the total amount expended for Canadian-owned industries and the total amount for foreign-owned subsidiaries?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: 1. To October 31, 1970, accepted offers for the establishment of new facilities under RDIA total 165, distributed among provinces as follows:
			No. of
Province		New Facilities	
Newfoundland			3
Prince Edward Island			6
Nova Scotia			11
New Brunswick			24
Quebec			68
Ontario			12
Manitoba			20
Saskatchewan			4
Alberta			10
British Columbia			7
Total			165
2. The amount disbursed $2,050,243.	to October	31,	1970 was3. (a) Canadian-owned or	controlled,	42*;	(b) Nonresident owned or controlled, 16t; (c) Not identified as (a) or (b), 107*.
4. (a) Canadian-owned or controlled, $587,437*; (b) Non-resident owned or controlled, nilt; (c) Not identified as (a) or (b), $1,462,806$.
* Canadian-owned or controlled-Corporations have been classified as Canadian-owned or controlled where official information filed with the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act Administration indicates that 50 per cent or more of the voting stock is directly or indirectly owned by Canadian residents or where although more than 50 per cent of the voting stock is held by non-residents there is no foreign parent or concentration of foreign control and effective control rests with the management and directors of the Canadian company. Companies not reporting under the act have been classified as Canadian-owned or controlled if available public information indicates that 50 per cent or more of the voting stock is owned by Canadian residents.
Questions
t Non-resident owned or controlled-Corporations have been classified as non-resident owned or controlled where official information filed with the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act Administration indicates that more than 50 per cent of the voting stock is directly or indirectly owned by non-resident shareholders and there is a concentration of such ownership. Corporations not reporting under the act have been classified as non-resident owned or controlled if available public information indicates that more than 50 per cent of the voting stock is owned by non-residents and there is a concentration of such ownership.
$ Not identified-Includes companies that are exempt from reporting under the Corporations and Labour Union Returns Act and where conclusive evidence of the country of ownership is not available from other public sources.


DUPLICATION OF INFORMATION COLLECTED BY DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR AND DBS
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 352
Mr. Skoberg:: 1.	What action has been taken, or what measures are contemplated, by the Minister of Labour to eliminate the duplication caused by his Department continuing to collect, on a voluntary basis, the same kind of information from unions that must he included in the annual returns filed by unions with the Dominion Statistician pursuant to Section 9(a) of the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act?
2.	Has the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce sanctioned, or concurred in, any changes or amendments to the reporting requirements of Part II of the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act and, if so, what are these changes or amendments?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Department of Labour and Statistics Canada (Dominion Bureau of Statistics) as follows: 1. Early in 1970, interdepartmental arrangements were developed aimed at eliminating the duplication caused by the concurrent operation of the Department of Labour's annual survey of labour organizations and the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act. Under these arrangements, information submitted by unions to the Department of Labour in fulfilment of the January 1, 1971 survey requirements will be made available to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics to satisfy the major portion of the requirements of Section 9(a) of the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act. For this reason, certain additional items of information will be requested of unions by the Department of Labour in the January 1971 survey.
2.	At the request of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, arrangements were developed with the Department of Labour early in 1970 whereby information submitted to the Canada Department of Labour in fulfilment of that department's January 1, 1971 survey requirements would be used to satisfy the major portion of the 1970 reporting requirements of Section 9(a) of the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act. For this reason, the Department of Labour's survey coverage for January 1, 1971 was extended to include certain additional items of information. This arrangement does not reduce the legislative requirements of the Corporations and

June 30, 1971
Questions
Labour Unions Returns Act. Information not available through the Canada Department of Labour survey will be obtained directly by Statistics Canada (Dominion Bureau of Statistics).
The following reporting requirements are affected by this arrangement: (a) The major portion of Section A is filed indirectly with the Dominion Statistician, (b) The reference date for the reporting is January 1, 1971. This will affect only unions with fiscal year-end other than December 31, 1970. (c) The signature of the union official submitting the report to the Canada Department of Labour survey is accepted, for that report, in lieu of the verifications by two executive board members.


GRANTS MADE UNDER THE REGIONAL INCENTIVES ACT
Mr. Downey: 1.	What is the total number of grants and their dollar value made to date under the provisions of the Regional Incentives Act?
2.	What is the total number by province and their value?
3.	What is the total number of grants and their dollar value made to companies owned or controlled by foreign parent companies?
4.	What percentage of total grants has been made to companies owned or controlled by foreign parent companies (as compared to the total value of grants) since the grants have been made under the Act?


James Alexander Jerome: 1. Three hundred and twelve offers accepted to a value of $86,299,488.
2. Province	Number of Accepted Offers	ValueNewfoundland	12	$ 826,446Prince Edward Island	10	984,133Nova Scotia	33	19,803,782New Brunswick	39	11,979,459Quebec	119	32,807,848Ontario	21	10,426,717Manitoba	46	4,635,810Saskatchewan	7	1,360,690Alberta	15	2,996,266British Columbia	10	478,337Total	312	$86,299,4883.	(a) 34; (b) $30,165,999.4.	35 per cent.


COMMITTEE STUDYING RECLASSIFICATION OF MILITARY AWARDS
Mr. Marshall: 1.	What are the members of the decorations committee looking into reclassification of military awards?
2.	To which minister is the committee responsible?
3.	What are the terms of reference and its responsibilities?
4.	When will its report be completed?
5.	Will the report be tabled in the House?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: 1. The question of a reclassification of (military) awards has not been examined by the Government Decorations Committee; rather, a group of officials including representatives of: the Governor General's Secretariat, the Privy Council Office, the Department of National Defence and the Department of the Secretary of State has been examining the implications of the establishment of awards for outstanding service and achievement by military personnel.
2.	The officials referred to in 1 reported to the Prime Minister.
3.	The officials were to examine the implications of the establishment of a comprehensive set of honours and awards and to provide new mechanisms for its administration.
4.	The officials recently made their conclusions available to the Prime Minister.
5.	It is not customary to table in Parliament internal reports by officials to ministers.


FUEL USED BY CANADIAN COMMERCIAL PROPJETS OR JETLINERS
Mr. Nielsen: What Canadian airlines operating commercial propjets or jetliners are using (a) JP4 fuel (b) kerosene?


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The major Canadian airlines use both kerosene and JP4 fuel as tabulated below.
Airline	Fuel Used
Air Canada	JP1 (kerosene) X	JP4 XCP Air	X	XNordair	X	XQuebecair	X	XPacific Western	Airlines	X	XEastern Pacific	Airlines	X	X
As all current turbojet and turboprop engines are cleared to use both JP1 (kerosene) and JP4 fuel as specified in the approved Flight Manuals, the operator may choose whichever fuel is most suitable. The main factors in the selection are availability, cost and aircraft range requirement. If the range of an aircraft is limited by fuel tank capacity, greater range can be achieved with JP1 because of its greater energy content per gallon.


POSSIBILITY OF PLACING ALL FEED GRAIN SALES UNDER JURISDICTION OF THE WHEAT BOARD EXCEPT FARM-TO-FARM SALES
Mr. Souiham: Is it the government's intention to place all feed grain sales under the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board with the exception of farm-to-farm sales?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: The changes which the government is proposing in the Canadian Wheat Board Act are set out in Bill C-238.
[Mr. Jerome.)
June 30, 1971


HARBOUR PARK DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
Mrs. Maclnnis: 1.	What are the names of the Directors of Harbour Park Developments Limited, presently operating in Vancouver?
2.	What is the per-square-foot rental charged by the National Harbours Board to Harbour Park Developments Limited for their Vancouver property?
3.	What is the proposed per-square-foot rental to be charged to Four Seasons Hotels Limited by the National Harbours Board for their Vancouver property?
4.	What per-square-foot rental is to be charged by the National Harbours Board to Harbour Board Developments Limited for the Gilford Street water lot now being deeded back to the Crown by the City of Vancouver for the sum of one dollar?
5.	How close is the proposed Four Seasons development to the boundary of Stanley Park?
6.	Is this the first time the National Harbours Board has leased public property to private developers for other than public or water-oriented purposes?


Gérard Duquet: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: 1. The Directors are: Mr. Peter Paul Saunders; Mr. Andrew E. Saxton; Mr. Harold S. Foley; Mr. Graham Russell Dawson; Mr. William Bruce Laurie.
2.	The lease which is now in effect calls for the following rates: (a) For the period until 1974: 6 cents per sq. ft. per annum; (b) For the period 1974-1999: 16.43 cents per sq. ft. per annum; (c) For the period 1999-2027: at such rentals computed in accordance with formulas set out in lease, but at an annual rate of at least 16.43 cents per sq. ft. per annum; (d) For the period 2027-2048: at such rentals as may be fixed by the board subject to lessee's right of appeal to Federal Court (formerly Exchequer Court).
3.	Under the application that has been submitted, Four Seasons Hotels Limited would be a sub-lessee and would not be liable for any rent to the board.
4.	The matter of rental is under consideration.
5.	The north west boundary of the leasehold property is adjacent to the Stanley Park property.
6.	No.


AIR CANADA-LAY-OFFS, TRANSFERS AND RE-INSTATEMENTS
Mr. Comeau: 1.	How many employees have been laid off by Air Canada, or transferred by Air Canada to date, since the proposed lay-offs were approved last month?
2.	How many employees already have been re-instated or are going to be re-instated?
3.	How much seniority did each employee have and what was the length of notice given each employee?


Gérard Duquet: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1, 2 and 3. As in the airline and other industries, employment levels in Air Canada depend upon traffic, technological changes, seasonal factors and other conditions which create fluctuations in the volume of business. 355 employees affected by the recent staff adjustments; of these, 133 were engaged in passenger reservations who, upon being hired, had been advised
Questions
that the positions were of a temporary nature pending the coming into operation about, November 1970, of the RESERVEC II computer system; 117 worked at various airports in positions which were directly related to traffic volumes and more efficient methods of operation i.e. ramp, baggage, counter, etc. The periods of service of these two groups varied from six months to two years. In addition, there were 59 employees with less than six months' service and 46 part-time personnel whose positions were directly related to traffic volume. Fourteen days' notice of lay-off was given and in addition, a payment equivalent to two weeks' salary was made to those having in excess of six months' service. Management is doing all possible to deal with staff adjustments in as humane manner as possible and those laid-off will be recalled or offered alternate employment as vacancies occur or traffic increases warrant additional staff. In this connection, as at June 4, 49 employees had been recalled into their former positions on a permanent basis and 90 on a temporary basis. In addition, 2 were placed in other positions on a permanent basis and 19 on a temporary basis.


PROFIT MADE BY AIR CANADA
Mr. Comeau: 1.	How much profit has Air Canada made each year since 1965?
2.	Is it the policy of Air Canada or the policy of the government that profitable centres of air travel should make up for unprofitable centres of air travel and, if not, for what reason?
3.	Was this in the original charter and, if so, on what date did it change?
4.	(a) How many international flights does Air Canada operate (b) how many of these are not profitable?
5.	Is it the intention of Air Canada to discontinue those flights which are unprofitable, similar to unprofitable flights within Canada?


Gérard Duquet: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. The information which is contained in the company's printed annual report for the years indicated is as follows: 1965, $3,989,960, 1966, $2,909,878, 1967, $3,547,320; 1968, $8,183,557; 1969, $1,547,628; 1970, ($1,072,000).
2.	There is always some element of cross-subsidization in any major airline operation but it is the policy of Air Canada to keep the requirement for cross-subsidization to a minimum and to earn a return which is reasonable on consolidated operations.
3.	No.
4	and 5. The number of such flights varies. During a peak period this coming summer a total of 662 international flights per week are scheduled. International operations are planned based upon a concept of achieving over-all profitability with no attempt made to monitor or report profitability by individual flight.


RESULTS OF CANADIAN FLOATING DOLLAR
Mr. McKinley: Have any Canadian industries received financial assistance from the government during the period from January, 1970 to

June 30, 1971
Questions
February, 1971 because of financial hardship created by the floating Canadian dollar and, if so (a) what industries (b) what was the amount of such assistance


Mr. Bruce Howard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The department does not have a specific program to compensate Canadian industry for hardship created by the floating dollar. However, the department is working vigorously with Canadian industry to ensure that maximum advantage is taken of the department's services and incentive programs in an effort to improve international competitiveness of Canadian industry both at home and in world markets.


MONEYS PAID TO FARMERS UNDER CANADA MANPOWER
Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	In 1970, how many western farmers received assistance under the Canada Manpower Mobility Program in the forms of (a) trainee travel grants (b) exploratory grants (c) relocation grants?
2 How much money was paid to the farmers to divert wheat land to summer fallow or to forage crops under the Lift Program?
3.	What was the total administrative cost to the federal government for implementing the Lift Program?
4.	How many acres of wheat were reduced in 1970?
5.	How much money was spent in 1970 for the purpose ol finding markets abroad for (a) grain products (b) beef?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Departments of Manpower and Immigration, Agriculture, Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Canadian Wheat Board as follows: 1. (a) Trainee travel grant statistics are not available for the calendar year on an occupational basis, however in the 1969-70 fiscal-year 1,490 farmers and farm workers in the Prairie provinces were referred to training; of these an estimated 30 per cent or 447 received travel grants, (b) Exploratory grant statistics are not available on an occupational basis, but in the Prairie provinces approximately 50 per cent of relocation grant recipients in 1970 had previously received exploratory grants, (c) In 1970, 12 relocation grants were authorized to farmers in the Prairie provinces: Manitoba 1, Saskatchewan 8 and Alberta 3.
2.	As at March 15, 1971, the total amount paid to farmers under the Operation Lift Program was $57,046,689.
3.	The total administrative cost for the Lift Program, to March 15th, 1971, was $1,871,719.
4.	The reduction in wheat acreage, as reported by the farmers who applied for payment, was 11,497,628 acres.
5.	(a) It is not possible to assign a specific dollar value to government expenditure on efforts to find markets abroad for beef and grain products. In the main, government assistance has taken the form of support activity through the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. (b) Accounting records for the department do not provide a detailed cost of promotion for beef (per se) as it is included in food presentations generally as well as those promotions in which beef is the prime object, additionally it is covered by the activities of many branches and divisions of the department.
Specific activities which included beef were:	(a)
European Meat Trade Study, (b) Promotion of chilled carcass beef to Toyko. (c) Promotion in Keio department store covering many consumer products including beef, (d) Solo Meat and Frozen Food Shows in Osaka and Tokyo directed to the Hotel and Restaurant trade, featuring chilled beef, (e) Floating Food Show to the Caribbean, (f) The National Restaurant Show in Chicago, (g) The Caribbean Hotel Association Show, (h) Beef Industry Studies in Japan by Dr. H. C. Love for Alberta Cattle Commission, Mr. Paul Babey for Unifarm, Alberta, and Mr. H. Hargreaves, Marketing Commissioner, province of Alberta, all of which were given assistance by department, (i) A visit of Japanese Meat Industry personnel to Canada received departmental cooperation, (j) Beef breeding cattle were promoted at the National Livestock Show in Las Vegas, the cost of which was shared between the department and the National Beef Breeds Association.
In addition, the trade commissioners in numerous countries sought outlets for Canadian beef and specific enquiries were directed to the trade in Canada from many areas including:	Portugal, Spain, Switzerland,
Britain, Lebanon, Israel, Caribbean, Hong Kong, Philli-pines, Singapore.


OIL-PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	As of March 10, 1971, how much money had been allocated to the investigation of ecological considerations of a Mackenzie clearway pipeline?
2.	On March 10, 1970, how many employees of the Departments of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and of Energy, Mines and Resources were involved in investigating the ecological implications of a Northern pipeline?
3.	On March 10, 1971, were any outside consultants under contract to investigate the ecological aspects of the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline?
4.	Under what appropriations were moneys made available for each of the above investigations?


James Alexander Jerome: In so far as the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources is concerned: 1. Planned expenditure 1971-72 $400,000 on environmental studies*, none on ecology per se.
2.	Manpower usage in 1971-72 17 man years on environmental studies*, on ecology per se.
3.	None.
4.	Votes 15 and 20 of the Main Estimates 1971-72 for the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.
* Environmental-terrain studies have been underway in Mackenzie Valley for a number of years. Accelerated work relating to pipelines commenced in 1969.
In so far as the Department of the Environment is concerned: 1: $165,000.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	No.
4.	Supplementary Estimates "C"
In so far as the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is concerned: 1. $283,000.

June 30, 1971

The private sector is engaged in technical and environmental studies which are funded in total in the amount of $23.9 million.
2.	Five employees.
3.	Yes.
4.	The funding outlined is under the Northern Economic Development Branch appropriations and the private sector.


OIL-ECOLOGY IN THE ARCTIC
Mr. Harding: 1 Does the government have any information on investigations of the ecological implications of pipelines in the Arctic being carried out by private companies and, if so, what are the names of the companies?
2.	Have any private oil companies received or applied for funds from the government to investigate any aspect of ecology in the Arctic?
3.	Has Panarctic Oil commissioned or undertaken any research on the ecological implications of Antarctic pipelines.


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Departments of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Environment and Energy, Mines and Resources as follows: 1. Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Research Limited; The Northwest Project Study Group; The Alberta Gas Trunk Line Company; The Arctic Gas Systems Study Group; The Mountain Pacific Project.
2.	No.
3.	Panarctic Oil is assisting the ALUR Program and doing studies on oil derrick foundations.


FEES PAID BY GOVERNMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES IN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
Mr. Nielsen: 1.	For each year 1960 to 1965 inclusive, what was the total amount paid by the government for fees for legal services performed in the Northwest Territories (a) what are the names of each of the solicitors to whom such fees were paid (b) in each case, what was the total amount?
2.	For each year 1966 to 1970 inclusive, what was the total cost for the operation of the office of the Crown Prosecutor in the Northwest Territories?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: 1.
1959-60	M. de Weerdt D. J. Hagel	16,713 1,411	18,1241960-61	M. de Weerdt R. F. Hyde W. G. Morrow	15,828 919 3,457	20,2041961-62	W. D. Chilcott M. de Weerdt A. W. Miller A. E. Williams	2,571 12,337 2,392 584	17,8841962-63	W. D. Chilcott M. de Weerdt A. W. Miller D. H. Searle A. E. Williams	1,500 25,831 796 3,730 1,641	33,498
7,036
3,360
12,707
2,447	27,146
7,481
16,967
6,074
4,713
1,014	36,919

Note: Only fees of $500 or over are included in the above figures. Records for expenditures of fees less than $500 are not available.
2.	For the years 1966/70 the total costs of the operation of the office of the Crown Prosecutor in the Northwest Territories were: 1966/67, $21,039; 1967/68, $31,763; 1968/ 69, $33,254; 1969/70, $32,044; 1970/71, $44,894; Total: $162,994.
Note: These costs include salaries, telephones, supplies, travel and accommodation.


NEWFOUNDLAND-DEVELOPMENT OF AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY
Mr. Marshall: 1.	Has the government completed agreements with the Province of Newfoundland toward development of the provincial agricultural industry to a $250 million production level?
2.	Has the provincial government applied for federal assistance to establish egg processing facilities at Corner Brook, Newfoundland?
3.	What will the federal contribution he toward this project?
4.	Has the provincial government requested federal assistance to provide controlled temperature multiple storage facilities at Harbour Grace, Clarenville, Winterland, Robinsons and St. Anthony and, if so (a) how much money is involved (b) what will the federal contribution be?


Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. No.
2.	Yes; (Newfoundland Farm Products Corporation).
3.	Approximately $518,000 (20 per cent of approved capital costs plus $5,000 per job).
4.	Under discussion.


WEAPONS FORFEITED OR RETURNED-POLICE ORDER REGS. 1970, PC 1970-1808
Mr. Brewin: With respect to the answer to Question Number 248 at page 3139 of Hansard, February 8, 1971, how many weapons were returned to the owners and how many were forfeited?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: I am informed as follows: Twenty-eight weapons were returned to 17 persons. The remaining weapons are still under seizure by the Quebec Police Force pending either court action or other disposition, none having been forfeited to date.
Questions
1963- 64	W. D. Chilcott
M. de Weerdt A. Maloney A. Miller D. H. Searle A. E. Williams
1964- 65	M. de Weerdt
D. H. Searle J. D. Neilson A. E. Williams D. Hagel W. Morrow

June 30, 1971
Questions


FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO NORTHERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, 1969-70
Mr. Godin: In 1969 and 1970, has the government made grants to Northern Electric Company and, if so (a) in what amounts (b) on what date (c) in what part of the country?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: In the fiscal year 1969/70* (a) $282,000. (b) Not applicable as this involves monthly progress payments, (c) Ontario. In the fiscal year 1970/71* (a) $492,828.34. (b) Not applicable as this involves monthly progress payments, (c) Quebec, $465,828.34; Ontario $27,000.
*These are funds from the Program for the Advancement of Industrial Technology and the Defence Industry Productivity Program; however, section 13 of the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act prohibits the divulgence of information concerning any corporation.


FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MEDICAL SCHOOL AT MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY IN NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Carter: 1.	Has financial assistance been promised the Province of Newfoundland by the Government of Canada from the Health Resources Fund in connection with the development of a medical school at Memorial University and, if so, what is the total amount of such assistance promised toward capital costs?
2.	Has the Government of Canada made any commitment to assist financially toward the operating costs of the medical school at Memorial University and, if so, from what source?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. As of June 22, 1971 under the Health Resources Fund program, projects totalling $1,991,025 for financial assistance to Newfoundland's Memorial University (Health Science Centre) have been approved. Of this amount $170,170 has been paid to date to the province.
2.	(a) Under the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, 1967, the Government of Canada, through the Department of the Secretary of State provides financial support to assist the provinces towards the operating costs of post secondary education in medical schools, (b) Federal assistance towards the operating costs of teaching hospitals is also available to the provinces under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act.


OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH WORKS PROJECTS SUBMITTED FROM DISTRICT OF HUMBER-ST. GEORGES-ST. BARBE
Mr. Marshall: 1.	Have any projects been submitted to the Department of the Secretary of State from the District of Humber-St. Georges-St. Barbe, under the heading of "works projects" and, if so (a) what are the projects (b) what organizations submitted them (c) what decision has been made in each case (d) what is the estimated cost of each project?
2.	In the case of refusals, what are the reasons in each case?


Gérard Pelletier: 1. The following are the approved projects for the district of Humber-St. Georges-St. Barbe, three of which may be considered as works projects: (1) Title of project: Gen-
eral repair and clean up project of community recreation area. Amount: $5,000. Organization: Sandy Cove Community Council. (2) Title: Bonne Bay Mountaineering project. Amount: $7,900. Organization: Students from Memorial University. (3) Deer Lake Information and News Weekly Paper. Amount:	$3,500. Organization:
Students. (4) Title: Cox's Cove Clean Up Campaign. Amount: $14,335. Organization: Cox's Cove Citizen's Group. (5) Title: Cornerbrook Collection of Archives and Artifacts. Amount: $6,000. Organization: Cornerbrook Historical Association. (6) Title: Cornerbrook Retarded Children's Project. Amount: $8,600. Organization: Retarded Children's Association and Integrated Students' Council. (7) Title: Port au Port Recreation and Clean up. Amount: $5,350. Organization: Students. (8) Title: Port au Port Inshore Fishery Support Project. Amount: $15,000. Organization: Port au Port Economic Development Association. (9) Title: Port au Port Rural, Social and Cultural Research Project. Amount: $5,000. Organization: Port au Port Economic Development Association.
2.	It is not the policy of Opportunities for Youth to release individual reasons for rejections of projects. A general letter of rejection from the Secretary of State's office will be sent to each unsuccessful applicant.


PLACES OF RESIDENCE OF JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ONTARIO
Mr. McCutcheon: Have any Judges of the Supreme Court of Ontario been granted leave to reside elsewhere in Ontario than at the City of Toronto or within five miles thereof and, if so (a) on what authority (b) what judges were granted such leave and, in each case (i) for what locality was residence leave granted (ii) what time was specified (iii) what, if any, conditions were imposed?


John Napier Turner: Lacourciere, (i) North Bay, (ii) until July 1, 1968 (10 months), (iii) none. Hon. Mr. Justice G. A. Addy, (i) Ottawa, (ii) until July 1, 1968 (9 months), (iii) none. Hon. Mr. Justice L. T. Pennell, (i) Brantford, (ii) until August 31, 1969 (15 months), (iii) none. Hon. Mr. Justice Patrick T. Galligan, (i) Ottawa, (ii) until August 31, 1970 (6 months), (iii) none.


CREATION OF AN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CO-ORDINATING COUNCIL
Mr. MacDonald (Egmonl): 1.	Is the government creating an agricultural research coordinating council as recommended by the Science Council of Canada?
2.	Will the government phase out the Canadian Agricultural Services Co-ordinating Committee or provide it with a staff and mandate to meet more than once a year?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Prime Minister's and Privy Council offices and the Department of Agriculture as follows: 1. The recommendations of the Science Council of Canada are under consideration by the government.
2.	At the present time, if the need arises, the Canadian Agricultural Services Co-ordinating Committee can meet more than once a year. Some committees of the Canadian Agricultural Services Co-ordinating Committee have met as many as five times in one year. While no full time positions are allocated to the Canadian Agricultural Services Co-ordinating Committee, the Canada Department of Agriculture officials devote whatever time is necessary to various studies undertaken for the Canadian Agricultural Services Co-ordinating Committee. Additional meetings are under consideration.


UNIVERSITY FROM WHICH PUBLIC SERVICE EXECUTIVES GRADUATED
Mr. Yewchuk: For each of the 500 top executives in the Public Service, how many graduated from (a) each of the Canadian universities (b) universities in France (c) British universities (d) American universities?


Gérard Pelletier: I am
informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: The following report covers employees appointed to the Executive Category by the Public Service Commission. It reflects each employee's first degree only. Some employees hold degrees from two or more universities but subsequent degrees were not included in order to avoid double counting. SX Group: Number of Graduates by University: A. Canadian Universities, total 377. Toronto, 79; British Columbia, 33; Queen's, 30; Manitoba, 28; Montreal, 25; McGill, 25; Alberta, 21; Ottawa, 18; Western Ontario, 17; Saskatchewan, 15; Laval, 14; Carleton, 12; New Brunswick, 10; Dalhousie, 9; McMaster, 8; Acadia, 7; Mount Allison, 3; Sir George Williams, 3; Saint Mary's, 3; Nova Scotia Technical College, 2; St. Francis Xavier, 2; Windsor, 2; Winnipeg, 2; Bishop's, 1; Calgary, 1; Guelph, 1; Macdonald, 1; Moncton, 1; Quebec, 1; Royal Military College, 1; Royal Military College, 1; Other Canadian Universities, 2. B. Uni-
Questions
versities in France, 0. C. British Universities, 22. D. American Universities, 8; Other Universities, 5; No Degree, 146; Total: 558.


RCMP IN MANITOBA
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	How many members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police ensure law and order in the province of Manitoba?
2.	What was the cost for these services during the last fiscal year?
3.	Does the province of Manitoba partially or totally reimburse the cost of these services to the Government of Canada and, if so, what reimbursement was made during the fiscal years 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. 705.
2.	$8,990,000 (rounded).
3.	Yes, partial reimbursement by the province and municipalities under contract. Reimbursement does not include costs for federal policing or capital costs which include acquisition of land and construction of buildings. 1966-67, $1,837,192; 1967-68, $2,397,808; 1968-69, $2,805,424; 1969-70, $3,294,771; 1970-71, $3,919,255.


SINGLE ECONOMY FARE VANCOUVER TO MONTREAL
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What was the cost of a single economy fare Vancouver to Montreal with a stop-over in Winnipeg and Toronto prior to August 5, 1970?
2 What was the cost of the same fare with the same stopovers between August 5, 1970 and March 6, 1971?
3.	What is the current cost of a single economy fare Vancouver to Montreal with a stop-over in Winnipeg and Toronto?
4.	What was the percentage increase in the fare from Vancouver to Montreal with stop-overs in Winnipeg and Toronto between May 1, 1970 and May 1, 1971?


Gérard Duquet: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. $132.
2.	$150,
3.	$175.
4.	Percentage increase 32.6 per cent.


COST OF ECONOMY FLIGHT WINNIPEG TO TORONTO
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What was the cost of an economy flight Winnipeg to Toronto and return on July 1, 1970 and, what will it be on July 1, 1971, for (a) one person (b) a man and wife (c) a man and wife and one child (d) a man and wife and two children, and (e) a man and wife and three children?
2.	What is the percentage increase for the cost of such fares?


Gérard Duquet: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows:
Note: Unable to predict fare level on July 1, 1971, therefore fare quoted effective May 25, 1971. As ages of children not stated possible age combinations are included for each family group. Part 2 of this question is answered by showing the percentage increases against each pair of fares.

June 30, 1971
Questions
1. to
to
to
to
to
one person	
man and wife	
man, wife and one child (i) if child 12 through 21 years of age. (ii) if child 2 through 11 years of age...
man, wife and two children
(i)	if both 12 through 21 years of age..
(ii)	if both 2 through 11 years of age...
(iii)	if one 12 through 21 years of age 1 and one 2 through 11 years of age/'
man, wife and three children
(i)	Three 12 through 21 years of age...
(ii)	Three 2 through 11 years of age_
(iii)	One 12 through 21 years of age 1 and two 2 through 11 years of age/'
(iv)	Two 12 through 21 years of age \ and one 2 through 11 years of age j
Effective July 1/70 Return Trip	Effective May 25/71 Return Trip	Percentage of Increase$	$	%114.00	132.00	15.8199.50	231.00	15.8256.50	319.00	24.4237.50	297.00	25.1313.50	407.00	29.8275.50	363.00	31.8294.50	385.00	30.7370.50	495.00	33.6313.50	429.00	36.8332.50	451.00	35.6351.50	473.00	34.6


TICKET COST FOR CHILDREN ACCOMPANYING PARENTS ON JULY 1, 1970, ON JULY 1, 1971
Mr. Orlikow: What percentage of a regular ticket was the cost of a ticket for children accompanying their parents under the family plan on July 1, 1970 and what will it be on July 1, 1971?


Gérard Duquet: 
COST OF ECONOMY TRIP WINNIPEG TO MONTREAL
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What was the cost of an economy trip Winnipeg to Montreal with stop-overs in Toronto and Ottawa on July 1, 1970 and what will it be on July 1, 1971?
2.	What is the percentage increase in the cost of this fare?


Gérard Duquet: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: Unable to predict cost on July 1, 1971, stated as effective May 25, 1971. 1. Effective July 1, 1970, $69; Effective May 25, 1971, $105.
2.	Percentage increase 52.2 per cent.


COST OF ROUND-TRIP FROM WINNIPEG WITH STOPS IN REGINA, CALGARY, VANCOUVER, EDMONTON AND SASKATOON
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What was the cost of a round-trip from Winnipeg with stops in Regina, Calgary, Vancouver, Edmonton, Saskatoon in April 1970 and April 1971?
2.	What was the percentage increase in the cost of this fare?


Gérard Duquet: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. April 1970 first class $186, economy class $138; April 1971 first class $285, economy class $211.
2.	First class 53.2 per cent, economy class 52.9 per cent.


COST OF FAMILY FARE VANCOUVER TO MONTREAL WITH STOP-OVERS IN WINNIPEG AND TORONTO
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What was the cost of a family fare (husband, wife, one child over 12, one child under 12) Vancouver to Montreal with stop-overs in Winnipeg and Toronto in April 1970 and April 1971?
2.	What was the percentage increase in the cost of this fare?


Gérard Duquet: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. April 1970 first class $459.85, economy class $341.05; April 1971 first class $691.30, economy class $510.45.
2.	Percentage increases first class 50.3 per cent, economy class 49.7 per cent.
June 30, 1971


COST OF FAMILY FARE VANCOUVER TO MONTREAL IN APRIL 1970, IN APRIL 1971
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What was the cost of a family fare (husband, wife, one child over 12, one child under 12) Vancouver to Montreal in April 1970 and April 1971?


Gérard Duquet: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. April 1970 first class $459.85, economy class $341,05; April 1971 first class $571.70, economy class $422.95.
2.	Percentage increase first class 24.3 per cent, economy class 24.0 per cent.


AIR CANADA-SENIOR OR YOUTH FARE VANCOUVER TO MONTREAL WITH STOP-OVERS IN WINNIPEG AND TORONTO, APRIL 1970 AND APRIL 1971
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What was the cost of a senior or youth fare on Air Canada from Vancouver to Montreal with stop-overs in Winnipeg and Toronto in April 1970 and April 1971?
2.	What was the percentage increase in the cost of this fare?


Gérard Duquet: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. April 1970 $66, April 1971 $117.
2.	Percentage increase 77.3 per cent.


AIR CANADA-SENIOR OR YOUTH FARE, VANCOUVER TO MONTREAL IN APRIL 1970 AND APRIL 1971
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What was the cost of a senior or youth fare on Air Canada from Vancouver to Montreal in April 1970 and April 1971?
2.	What was the percentage increase in the cost of this fare?


Gérard Duquet: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. April 1970 $66, April 1971 $97.
2.	Percentage increase 47.0 per cent.


AIR CANADA-SENIOR OR YOUTH FARE, VANCOUVER TO TORONTO WITH STOP-OVERS IN CALGARY AND WINNIPEG IN APRIL 1970 AND APRIL 1971
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What was the cost of a senior or youth fare on Air Canada from Vancouver to Toronto with stop-overs in Calgary and Winnipeg in April 1970 and April 1971?
2.	What was the percentage increase in the cost of this fare?


Gérard Duquet: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. April 1970 $60, April 1971 $106.
2.	Percentage increase 76.7 per cent.
Questions


AIR CANADA-SENIOR OR YOUTH FARE-VANCOUVER TO TORONTO WITH STOP-OVER IN WINNIPEG IN APRIL 1970 AND APRIL 1971
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What was the cost of a senior or youth fare on Air Canada from Vancouver to Toronto with a stop-over in Winnipeg in April 1970 and April 1971?
2.	What was the percentage increase in the cost of this fare?


Gérard Duquet: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. April 1970 $60; April 1971 $97.
2.	Percentage increase 61.7 per cent.


AIR CANADA-SENIOR OR YOUTH FARE. VANCOUVER TO TORONTO IN APRIL 1970 AND APRIL 1971
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What was the cost of a senior or youth fare on Air Canada from Vancouver to Toronto in April 1970 and April 1971?
2.	What was the percentage increase in the cost of this fare?


Gérard Duquet: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. April 1970 $60; April 1971 $89.
2.	Percentage increase 48.3 per cent.


AIR CANADA-SENIOR OR YOUTH FARE VANCOUVER TO WINNIPEG WITH STOP-OVERS IN CALGARY AND REGINA
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What was the cost of a senior or youth fare on Air Canada from Vancouver to Winnipeg with stop-overs in Calgary and Regina in April 1970 and April 1971?
2.	What was the percentage increase in the cost of this fare?


Gérard Duquet: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. April 1970 $35; April 1971 $70.
2.	Percentage increase 100 per cent.


AIR CANADA-SENIOR OR YOUTH FARE VANCOUVER TO WINNIPEG WITH STOP-OVER IN CALGARY
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What was the cost of a senior or youth fare on Air Canada from Vancouver to Winnipeg with a stop-over in Calgary in April 1970 and April 1971?
2.	What was the percentage increase in the cost of this fare?


Gérard Duquet: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. April 1970 $35; April 1971 $62.
2.	Percentage increase 77.1 per cent.


AIR CANADA-SENIOR OR YOUTH FARE FROM VANCOUVER TO WINNIPEG
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What was the cost of a senior or youth fare on Air Canada from Vancouver to Winnipeg in April 1970 and April 1971?
2.	What was the percentage increase in the cost of this fare?

June 30, 1971
Questions


Gérard Duquet: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. April 1970: $35; April 1971: $53.
2.	Percentage increase 51.4 per cent.


AIR CANADA-ECONOMY FARE VANCOUVER TO TORONTO WITH STOP-OVERS IN CALGARY AND WINNIPEG
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What was the cost of economy fare Vancouver to Toronto on Air Canada with stop-overs in Calgary and Winnipeg on April 1, 1970 and April 1971?
2.	What is the percentage increase in the cost of this fare?


Gérard Duquet: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. April 1, 1971: $158.
2.	Percentage increase from April 1, 1970 31.7 per cent.


AIR CANADA-ECONOMY FARE VANCOUVER TO TORONTO
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,430
Mr. Orlikow:: 1.	What was the cost of economy fare Vancouver to Toronto on Air Canada on April 1, 1970 and April 1, 1971?
2.	What is the percentage increase in the cost of this fare?


Gérard Duquet: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. April 1, 1970: $120; April 1, 1971 $133.
2.	Percentage increase 10.8 per cent.


AIR CANADA-ECONOMY FARE VANCOUVER TO WINNIPEG WITH STOP-OVERS IN CALGARY AND REGINA
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What was the cost of economy fare Vancouver to Winnipeg on Air Canada with stop-overs in Calgary and Regina on April 1, 1970 and April 1, 1971?
2.	What is the percentage increase in the cost of this fare?


Gérard Duquet: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. April 1, 1970 $69, April 1, 1971 $104.
2.	Percentage increase 50.7 per cent.


AIR CANADA-ECONOMY FARE VANCOUVER TO WINNIPEG WITH STOP-OVER IN CALGARY
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What was the cost of economy fare Vancouver to Winnipeg with a stop-over in Calgary on April 1, 1970 and April 1, 1971?
2.	What is the percentage increase in the cost of this fare?


Gérard Duquet: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. April 1, 1970 $69, April 1, 1971 $92.
2.	Percentage increase 33.3 per cent.


AIR CANADA-ECONOMY FARE FROM VANCOUVER TO WINNIPEG
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What was the cost of economy fare Vancouver to Winnipeg on Air Canada on April 1, 1970 and April 1, 1971?
2.	What is the percentage increase in the cost of this fare?


Gérard Duquet: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. April 1, 1970 $69, April 1, 1971 $79.
2.	Percentage increase 14.5 per cent.


CANADA COUNCIL
Mr. Rose: 1.	How many new applications were received by the Canada Council from students registered (a) in Canadian universities (b) in foreign universities, for Doctoral Fellowship grants in each of the past five years?
2.	How many of each group of the applications were accepted in each year?
3.	What was the amount of the grants made to each of the groups in each year?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canada Council as follows: 1, 2 and 3. The answers to all three questions will be found in the following table. The figures include all applicants associated with the universities, whether as students or as staff members. (Separate figures on the ratio of students to staff members applying for and receiving fellowships are available only for the last two years. In Canadian universities, it was 4:1. In foreign universities, the proportion of eligible applicants among staff members was negligible.)
1966-67	1967-68	1968-69	1969-70	1970-71	Canadian	Foreign	Canadian	Foreign	Canadian	Foreign	Canadian	Foreign	Canadian	ForeignUniver-	Univer-	Univer-	Univer-	Univer-	Univer-	Univer-	Univer-	Univer-	Univer-sities	sities	sities	sities	sities	sities	sities	sities	sities	sitiesApplications	
687	362	1,295	432	1,747	553	1,637	613	1,893	547Fellowships awarded	
392	229	649	259	767	267	617	273	592	223Amounts awarded* (S'000)	
1,210	707	2,705	1,080	3,260	1,135	2,810	1,244	2,723	1,026
*Based on average value of doctoral fellowships in the given year.

June 30, 1971


&quot;BUSINESS OF FARMING&quot; COURSES UNDER CANADA MANPOWER TRAINING PROGRAM
Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	By province, how many farmers completed the "Business of Farming" courses, sponsored by the Department of Manpower and Immigration during the past four years?
2.	How many of these farmers specialized in one of the introductory courses, and (a) later quit farming (b) took up a second occupation?
3.	For each of the past four years, what has been the total cost to the government of training allowances received by farmers taking the "Business of Farming" courses?
Questions


Otto Emil Lang: 1. Of all the farm management courses purchased from the provinces under the Canada Manpower Training Program, only the course in Ontario is identified in the records as a "Business of Farming" course. While information is not readily available on the number of farmers who completed farm management courses in the past four years by province, the number of training places' purchased by the Department in such courses by province and by fiscal year is given below:
Number of Training Places Purchased in Farm Management Courses Under the CMTP
1967-68	1968-69	1969-70	1970-71P.E.I	16	207	914Nova Scotia	-	32	64New Brunswick	
79	139	125	135Quebec	
1,355	-	50	680Ontario	
642	461	466	80Manitoba	
12	12	289	374Saskatchewan	-	308	1,128Alberta	
-	25	100	984British Columbia	
-	-	-	110T otal	653	1,577	4,469
1 roughly equivalent with number of persons trained.
2.	The continuous follow-up survey of CMTP graduates farmers completing farm management courses during which started in 1969 show the following results for that year:
Of those responding: Number	Number employed
received
survey	Response Rate	In related	In unrelated	questionnaires	percentage	occupations	Nova Scotia	
10	50.0	4	-New Brunswick	
123	50.4	56	4Quebec	
72	54.2	37	2Ontario	
538	81.3	398	25Manitoba	
218	79.8	148	12Saskatchewan	
10	50.0	1	2Alberta	
103	63.1	34	24Total	
1,078	77.5	678	69
It appears therefore that less than 10 per cent of the responding graduates took up occupations not related to their training course.

June 30, 1971
Questions
3.	The approximate cost of training allowances received by farmers taking farm management courses in the past four fiscal years has been as follows:
Estimated Cost of Allowances Farm Management Ontario Business Courses	of Farming Course
	$	$
1967-68	729,600	224,4001968-69	227,200	161,6001969-70	486,400	165,0001970-71	1,298,600	28,000


Mr. McIntosh: What were the total amounts charged against grain sales during the 1969-70 crop year, for each of the following (a) diversion charges (b) demurrage charges (c) stop-off charges for grain shipped to government elevators (d) dockage and screenings (e) storage payments to each elevator company (f) freight or grain shipments to each railway company (g) other administrative charges?


Otto Emil Lang: The following amounts were charged against grain delivered to the Canadian Wheat Board during the 1969-70 crop year.
(a)	Diversion Charges Wheat	Durum	Oats	Barley*16,710.52	Nil	Nil	NilQ>)	Demurrage Charges *362.41	Nil	Nil	Nil(c)	Stop-Off Charges *18,857.30	Nil	Nil	*367.22
(d) Dockage and Screenings
The Board purchases the net bushels of grain after dockage and screenings from the producer and therefore does not have any records for these accounts.
(e) Storage Payments Country Storage Wheat

Terminal Storage *1,195,416.62 Mill Storage $154,535.40
Durum
*1,031,361.50
*894,238.20
*39,560.40
Oats
*870,728.75
*313,196.23
Nil
Barley
*3,616,834.34

Nil
(/) Freight Charges
Freight charges are deducted from the producer by C.W.B. agents, in the private grain trade who pay the railway companies directly and these amounts do not appear in C.W.B. accounts.
(g) Administrative Charges
*1,813,002	*196,929
*142,013	*1,292,996


PRINTING AND SALE OF POSTAGE STAMPS
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	During the fiscal year 1970-71, what was the total paid to the British American Bank Note Company Limited and to the Canadian Bank Note Company Limited for the printing of postage stamps?
2.	During the same period, what was the total commission paid on the sale of postage stamps to various postmasters across the country?
3.	What was the total postage stamps sales to the public during the same period?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: 1. British American Bank Note Co., $719,557; Canadian Bank Note Co., $489,301; Ashton-Potter Ltd., Toronto, $158,179.
2.	Postmasters generally are not paid commissions but salaries. In the case of sub-postmasters (who operate small post offices in conjunction with other businesses) a portion of the total remuneration is related to the sales of postage stamps and stamped supplies. In 197071 these commissions amounted to $826,798.70.
3.	$135,322,180 including the sale of stamped supplies such as envelopes and post cards.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD-SALE OF FEED BARLEY
Mr. Ricard: From March 1, 1970 to March 1, 1971 (a) how much feed barley did the Canadian Wheat Board sell on the export market and for what price (b) how much feed barley did the Canadian Wheat Board sell on the Quebec market and for what price?


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of commercial practice it is not the policy of the Canadian Wheat Board to divulge the price at which specific quantities of grain have been sold.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	What salary will be paid to each commissionner responsible for the census?

June 30, 1971

2.	What is the amount allocated to a commissioner tor expenses?
3.	How are the census takers paid?
4.	Will they receive a fixed amount for each day of training and, if so, what is this amount?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Statistics Canada (Dominion Bureau of Statistics): reports that: 1. Each Census Commissioners positions have been divided into his services upon completion of the full assignment (which includes the training period).
2.	For purposes of administering travel expenses, Census Commissioners positions have been divided into three categories. Firstly, those operating in dense urban areas. This category comprises about 46% of the total Census Commissioners and they will be receiving a flat rate of $30 in lieu of mileage. A second category comprising about 7% of the Census Commissioners concerns those commissioners working in less dense urban areas. They will be receiving a $60 flat rate in lieu of mileage. Commissioners in other types of areas will be entitled to expenses in accordance with government travel regulations.
3.	Approximately 39,500 Census Representatives are paid on a piece rate basis depending on the type of area (density of households) to which they are assigned. Approximately 2,500 others are paid on an hourly rate. This includes representatives working in sparsely populated areas where canvassing method is used. Fifty dollars interim payment was made to each census representatives at the end of the drop-off of questionnaires phase of their assignment. The balance is paid on satisfactory completion of their assignments.
4.	Census Representatives receive a payment of $8 for each completed J day of training in addition to the pay received for their census work assignment.


MARGOULIS-CHOUBLADZE VACCINE
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	Are the researchers of the Department of National Health and Welfare or any other department aware of the existence of a Russian vaccination bearing the name Margoulis-Choubladze for the treatment of multiple sclerosis and, if so, has the government authorized research with respect to this vaccination?
2.	Did the Russian laboratory V/O Medexport submit a registration application for this medicine to Canada either directly or through the Russian Embassy in Ottawa and, if not, is the government willing to accept such an application?


John Carr Munro: 1. The Margoulis-Choubladze vaccine has been known to officers of the Food and Drug Directorate for
Questions
many years. The earliest published reference to this vaccine appeared in 1946, and in 1957 it was studied extensively in both Britain and the United States. According to information in the medical literature, the vaccine is prepared from the brains of rats or mice infected with a virus which cause acute encephalitis (inflammation of the brain) in man. Since the manufacturer of the Margoulis-Choubladze vaccine has not provided the Food and Drug Directorate with data in accordance with the Food and Drugs Act and Regulations, the importation of this vaccine into Canada and its distribution or sale for administration to humans would be in violation of the law.
2.	In the Spring of 1970 an official of the Embassy of the U.S.S.R. telephoned a senior officer of the Food and Drug Directorate and requested information concerning the Canadian regulations governing the importation and sale of this vaccine in Canada. It was explained to him that the manufacturer would be required to submit complete information to substantiate its safety and effectiveness in the treatment of multiple sclerosis and that until such information is received and found to be satisfactory, the importation of this vaccine into Canada would not be permitted. The Soviet official stated that he had in his possession some literature from the Russian company V/O Medexport pertaining to this vaccine. He asked if the Food and Drug Directorate would be willing to review this material and tell him what additional data would be required in a formal submission. Officers of the Food and Drug Directorate readily agreed to his proposal. Subsequently, documents describing the clinical results obtained with the vaccine were received from the Embassy of the U.S.S.R. and were reviewed. Detailed comments were then transmitted to the Embassy of the U.S.S.R. Advice was given as to the type and extent of additional data which the Directorate would require for inclusion in a formal submission as with any other drug proposed for sale in Canada. However, to date no such submission has been received. If and when such a submission is received, it will be promptly reviewed by officers of the Food and Drug Directorate.


PANARCTIC OILS LIMITED-ARCTIC ISLANDS
Mr. Harding: 1.	What is the total of acreage blocks held by Panarctic Oils in the Arctic Islands?
2.	What are the locations of the Panarctic Oils exploration wells?
3.	What agreements have been made by Panarctic Oils with other companies or groups of companies to farm out oil exploration rights on the Panarctic acreage blocks?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Panarctic Oils Ltd. as of June 1, 1971 holds 54,668,019 acres in Canada's Arctic Islands of which, 44,847,137 acres are subject to Farming Agreements with original permittees.
2.	Location of Panarctic Oils Ltd. Wells
1.	Panarctic Marie Bay D-02
2.	Panarctic Sandy Point L-46
3.	Panarctic Drake Point L-67
Location


D-02-76-30-115-30 L-46-76-30-115-30 L-67-76-30-108-30 COMMONS DEBATES
[Stage Direction]
June 30, 1971
Questions
Location of Panarctic Oils Ltd. Wells
4.	Panarctic Drake Point N-67
5.	Panarctic Drake Point K-67
6.	Panarctic Homestead Hecla J-60
7.	Panarctic Towson Point F-63
8.	Panarctic Hoodoo Dome H-37
9.	Panarctic Amund Central Dome H-40
10.	Panarctic	King	Christian	D-1811.	Panarctic	King	Christian	D-18-A12.	Panarctic	King	Christian	N-0613.	Panarctic	Fosheim N-2714.	Panarctic Deminex Gamier 0-2115.	Panarctic Deminex Cornwallis Central Dome
Location

[Stage Direction]
.40	K-40-75-10-94-30
3. Location of Farmout Wells-Drilled by Sun Oil and
1.	Sun KR Panarctic et al Allision R. N-12
2.	Sun KR Panarctic Kitson R. C-71
3.	Sun KR Panarctic Skybattle F-15
4.	Sun KR Panarctic Young Inlet D-21
1.	BP et al Panarctic Hotspur J-20
2.	BP et al Panarctic Satellite F-68
3.	Panarctic Oils Ltd. has announced four farmout agreements as listed below. All the farmouts in addition to other considerations involved multiple well programs in return for fractional interests in Panarctic's interests in specified Panarctic holdings on the Islands noted.
1.	BP Oil Ltd.-farmout agreement affecting lands located on Bathurst and Prince Patrick Islands. 2. Sun Oil Ltd. and King Resources Company formout affecting lands located on Prince of Wales, Bathurst, Melville, and Lougheed Islands. 3. Deminex farmout affecting lands located on Somerset, Cornwallis, Amund Ringnes Islands, and Fosheim Peninsula. 4. Imperial Oil Ltd. farmout affecting lands on Devon, Axel Heiberg, Cornwall and Ellef Ringnes Islands.
B.P. Oil & Gas

Mr. Brewin: Has the government promised aid for refugees from East Pakistan and, if so (a) how will it be distributed (b) what agencies will be involved (c) what form will the aid take?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Yes. (a) It will be distributed through Canadian voluntary agencies and the United Nations Geneva Cooperating Group, (b) Canadian voluntary agencies involved are the Canadian Red Cross Society, Oxfam of Canada, Canadian Council of Churches, Catholic Organization for Development and Peace and Mennonite Central Committee. The multilateral agencies are United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, World Health Organization, World Food Program, UNICEF and the League of Red Cross Societies.
(C)				
1.	Oxfam of Canada	$ 150,000	Cash	Contribution2.	Canadian Council of Churches	40,000	Cash	Contribution3.	Catholic Organization for Development and Peace	40,000	Cash	Contribution4.	Mennonite Central Committee	50,000	Cash	Contribution5.	League of Red Cross Societies (through Canadian Red Cross Society)	150,000	Cash	Contribution6.	Geneva Group of Co-operating U.N. Agencies (through UNHCR)	300,000	Cash	Contribution7.	World Food Program	1,250,000 (estimated)	Bulk	Rapeseed8.	Contingency	70,000	Total	$2,050,000	

June 30, 1971


RCMP-STRENGTH AND LANGUAGE SPOKEN
Mr. Godin: What is the total strength of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and, of this number (a) how many are bilingual (b) how many speak only English (cl how many speak only French?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 10,799.
(a)	1,252; (b) 9,547; (c) None.


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED-REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
Mr. Brewin: 1.	Does Atomic Energy of Canada Limited have a contract or any informal arrangement with any private or public firm, Individual or institution in the Republic of South Africa and, if so (a) what is the nature of the contract or informal arrangement (b) what equipment, technical services or other assistance are to be provided (c) with whom has the contract or informal arrangement been concluded (d) when was it concluded and for what period will it apply?
2.	Does Atomic Energy of Canada intend to enter into any new such contract or informal arrangement with any private or public Arm, individual or institution in the Republic of South Africa and, if so (a) what is the nature of the intended contract or informal arrangement (b) what equipment, technical services or other assistance are to be provided (c) with whom will it be concluded (d) when will such contract be concluded and for what period will it apply?


Otto Emil Lang: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited reports as follows:
1.	Yes. (a) Outstanding warranties on Cobalt 60 teletherapy units and irradiation equipment sold by AECL Commercial Products to customers in the Republic of South Africa, (b) Maintenance services, (c) and (d) Groote Schurr Hospital, Cape Town-1966-five-year warranty. Addington Hospital, Durban-1968-five-year warranty. South African Atomic Energy Board-1968- five-year warranty. Verwoerd Hospital, Pretoria-1969- five-year warranty. Johannesburg Hospital, Johannesburg -1969-five-year warranty. South African Atomic Energy Board, Pelindoba-1971-one-year warranty.
2.	Yes. (a) and (b) Sales of equipment made by AECL Commercial Products as part of a world wide marketing effort, (c) Private and/or public firms or institutions, (d) No specific contracts pending.


NUMBER RECEIVING $135 UNDER OLD AGE PENSION SECURITY PLAN
Mr. Godin: Excluding the Canadian and Quebec pension plans, by province, how many Canadians receive a monthly amount of $135, under the Old Age Security Plan and the Guaranteed Income Supplement?


John Carr Munro: In April 1971, the following numbers of persons were in receipt of the maximum combined Old Age Security pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement: Newfoundland, 19,441; Prince Edward Island, 5,039; Nova Scotia, 20,875; New Brunswick, 19,656; Quebec, 24171-55
Questions
137,877; Ontario, 125,845; Manitoba, 24,349; Saskatchewan, 25,464; Alberta, 23,026; British Columbia, 45,926; Northwest Territories, 399; Yukon, 149; Total, 448,046. There numbers will increase when all new applications for the supplement are received and processed. The amount of the maximum benefit is $135 a month for single persons and married persons whose spouses are not yet pensioners. For married persons where both are pensioners the monthly amount is $255 ($127.50 each).


* NUMBER OF CANADIAN WORKERS EMPLOYED IN UNITED STATES WHO ARE NOT ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS
Mr. Lambert (Bellechase): How many Canadian workers employed in the United States forestry industry cannot receive unemployment benefits from Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.


DEPARTMENT OF MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION-REGIONAL OFFICES
Mr. Schumacher: 1.	How many regional offices does the Department of Manpower and Immigration have?
2.	What is the location of each?
3.	When were they opened?
4.	How long have they been in their present locations?
5.	What space do they occupy and at what cost?
6.	Where was each previously situated?
7.	What space and at what cost did they previously occupy?
8.	Where applicable, what were the costs or refurnishing, remodelling and moving in each case?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. Five.
2.	Halifax, Nova Scotia (Centennial Building, 1645 Granville Street). Montreal, Quebec (550 Sherbrooke Street West). Toronto, Ontario (Toronto-Dominion Centre, 55 King Street West). Winnipeg, Manitoba (Royal Bank Building, 220 Portage Avenue). Vancouver, British Columbia (Royal General Insurance Building, 1155 West Pender Street).
3.	Halifax, October 1966; Montreal, February 1967; Toronto, July 1966; Winnipeg, December 1966; Vancouver, October 1967.
4.	Halifax, October 1966 to present; Montreal, February 1967 to present; Toronto, July 1966 to present; Winnipeg, December 1966 to present; Vancouver, October 1967 to present.
5.	Accommodation for this Department is provided by the Department of Public Works. Therefore the costs reflected are reported by the Regional Offices of that Department. Space identified, tends to reflect rentable and/or usable square footage. Halifax, 20,672 sq. ft., annual cost: $112,334.00; Montreal, 44,097 sq. ft., annual cost: $231,509.00; Toronto, 29,852 sq. ft., annual cost: $177,619.40; Winnipeg, 21,790 sq. ft., annual cost: $120,531.00; Vancouver 25,791 sq. ft., annual cost: $140,140.16.

June 30, 1971
Questions
6.	Halifax, 1645 Granville Street. Montreal, 1441 St. Urbain Street; 305 Dorchester Street. Toronto, 55 St. Clair Avenue West; 175 Bedford Road. Winnipeg, 266 Graham Avenue. Vancouver, 549 Howe Street; 1001 West Pender Street; 325 Granville Street.
7.	Halifax, not applicable. Montreal, no cost to the Department as space occupied was in Crown-owned building. Toronto, 55 St. Clair Avenue West-no cost to the Department as space occupied was in Crown-owned building; 175 Bedford Road-approximately 5,793 sq. ft. at an approximate cost of $14,440. per annum. Winnipeg, no cost to the Department as space occupied was in a Crown-owned building. Vancouver, the costs of space previously occupied are unknown because of the split operations with the Unemployment Insurance Commission. No costs were involved at two locations as space occupied was in Crown-owned buildings. Costs for the third building are not obtainable.
8.	Halifax, not applicable. Montreal, refurnishing, $5,000; remodelling, structural costs unknown-included in rental rate; moving, $4,000. Toronto, refurnishing, $15,369.75; remodelling, $52,150; moving, $1,935. Winnipeg, refurnishing, $22,000; remodelling, $16,000; moving, $1,270. Vancouver, refurnishing, $5,399.; remodeling, $53,277.32; moving, $4,000.


PARTICIPATION OF PUBLIC SERVANTS IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS
Mr. Fairweather: Can public servants (including teachers) working in the Northwest Territories participate in federal and territorial elections and, if not, when will this privilege be extended?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: A person employed in that part of the Public Service of Canada to which the Public Service Commission has the exclusive right and authority to appoint may, upon application to the Commission, be granted leave of absence without pay pursuant to Section 32 (3) of the Public Service Employment Act to seek nomination as a candidate and to be a candidate for election as a member of the House of Commons, of a provincial legislature or of the Council of the Yukon Territory or the Northwest Territories. The Commission must be satisfied, however, that the employee's usefulness to the Public Service in the position he occupies will not be impaired by reason of his having been a candidate in such an election. Since the Act came into force in 1967, three public servants from the Yukon Territory have applied for and been given leave of absence to seek nomination and to be candidates in federal and territorial elections.


PREMIER PRODUCTS COMPANY LIMITED, PREECEVILLE, SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. Burton: Has Premier Products Company Limited of Preeceville, Saskatchewan, applied for an extension of either the commencement date or completion date of its proposed processing facility at Humboldt, Saskatchewan, for which an industrial incentive
was announced on June 23, 1970 and, if so (a) on what date was such application made (b) what were the original stipulations for commencement and completion of the project in order to qualify for the grant (c) has the application for an extension been granted (d) what are the new dates applicable?


Abram Ernest Epp: Yes. (a) April 19, 1971; (b) Construction to begin on or before May 31, 1971; (c) Yes. (d) Construction to begin by November 30, 1971.


FLORENCE AGREEMENT
Mr. Fairweather: 1.	How many countries have joined the "Florence Agreement" sponsored by UNESCO?
2.	Is Canada a participant and, if not, when is it expected that Canada will be a signatory?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. The United Nations lists 63 countries for which the "Florence Agreement" on the Importation of Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials has entered into force.
2. Canada is not a signatory of the "Florence Agreement". Canada has not signed the Agreement because it has not been considered to be in Canada's interest to abandon the limited protection afforded domestic producers against imports of certain educational, scientific and cultural materials as long as important trading partners maintained barriers against Canadian exports of these materials. Canada does impose small duty on such imports but other countries, even where no tariffs are maintained, continue to limit imports from Canada of these materials by the use of stringent non tariff barriers. In any event the question of Canada's accession is under continuous review in the light of changing conditions in trade and in the light of the report submitted on March 23, 1971, by the Economic Council, based on its intensive study of aspects of cultural property.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-AERODROME, DEBERT, N.S.
Mr. Forresfall: 1.	What department has control over the aerodrome at Debert, Nova Scotia?
2.	What agencies have permission to operate from this aerodrome?
3.	Were road races authorized on this airfield on July 25, 1971, and, if so, by whom?
4.	Does the responsible department propose to relinquish control of this aerodrome in the near future and, if so, to what interest?
5.	What charges, if any, does the government levy against organizations for the use of this aerodrome?
6.	Is it still possible for private operators to obtain permission to use the Debert airfield and (a) if so, from whom (b) if not, for what reason?
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minisler of National
Defence): 1. Department of National Defence.
2.	None.
3.	Yes, by the Camp Commander.

June 30, 1971

4.	As the airfield is no longer required by the Department of National Defence it will be declared surplus to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation for disposal.
5.	Normal charges for the use of DND Aerodromes by aircraft are detailed in Order-in-Council PC 1962-70 of 18 January, 1962, as amended.
6.	Yes, however, the use of the airfield by private operators of aircraft would be at their own risk as the field is no longer maintained or operated, and no services are available at the site: (a) From the Department of National Defence through the Civil Aviation Branch, Ministry of Transport Ottawa; (b) not applicable.


UNITED NATIONS ORGANIZATIONS HEADQUARTERS IN CANADA
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many United Nations organizations have headquarters in Canada?
2.	What are the name and location of each such organization?
3.	What is the cost to Canada to maintain each of these headquarters in Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. One.
2.	International Civil Aviation Organization, International Aviation Building, Montreal, P.Q.
3.	$450,000 (1969/1970).


NATIONAL DEFENCE-MEAFORD TANK RANGE
Mr. Noble: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to leave the Meaford Tank Range unoccupied indefinitely and, if not, when will a statement be made concerning its future use?
2 Has any action been taken to have the target areas on the Meaford Range designated and proper signs posted as a safety measure or will immediate attention be given to removing any hazardous material from these areas?
3.	Has the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development taken any initiative to secure the Meaford Tank Range for a national park?
4.	How many people are now employed at the Meaford Range?
5.	Has the Camp Borden Rod and Gun Club been given permission to fish, hunt and camp on the Meaford Tank Range?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: 1. The future use of the range is being studied and when a decision is reached a statement will be made later this year.
2.	Signs have been posted every hundred yards along the perimeter fence reading "DND PROPERTY-NO TRESPASSING" and "DANGER MILITARY TARGET AREA. DO NOT TOUCH ANYTHING IT MAY EXPLODE AND KILL YOU".
3.	Discussions have been held from time to time with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (see Hansard dated November 18, 1970, page 1278, in reply to your question 292).
4.	Five Corps of Commissionnairs.
5.	Yes.
Questions


CANADIAN FORCES RESERVES-AGE LIMIT
Mr. Robinson: Will the government consider the advisability of raising the age requirement to 30 for applicants for the Militia so that those applicants professionally trained in the Arts and Sciences will have the opportunity to apply and serve in the Canadian Forces Militia?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: New orders governing career policies and terms of service for the Primary Reserve component of the Canadian Forces are being issued shortly. These new orders permit recruiting authorities to accept applicants, as officers or men, up to age 35. Canadian Forces' Headquarters may authorize the enlistment of candidates beyond the prescribed age limit depending on their qualifications. Force requirements and provided they can serve at least five years before reaching compulsory release age.


POVERTY LEVEL
Mr. McCleave: What does the Department of National Health and Welfare consider to be the acceptable "poverty level" of income for a single person and for a married couple with one wage earner?


John Carr Munro: The Department of National Health and Welfare does not use the concept of an acceptable "poverty level" of income. Although the Economic Council of Canada and other agencies have used the term in order to measure the extent of poverty in Canada, the levels of income which they describe as poverty level are necessarily based on opinion and judgment as to what constitutes an acceptable level of income for a given situation. The Department attempts to provide a basic level of income to low income aged persons in Canada. Thus in 1971, it has provided a minimum monthly income of $135 for a single person and $255 for a married couple. This amounts to $1,620 and $3,060 a year respectively. Through the Old Age Security Act as revised, the government has provided that no person over the age of 65 who meets the residence requirements will have less than these amounts to live on.


COST OF MAINTAINING CANADIAN TROOPS IN CYPRUS
Mr. Harkness: 1.	What is the cost per year to maintain Canadian troops on Cyprus?
2.	What has been the total cost, to date, of maintaining Canadian troops on Cyprus?
3.	How much of this cost is recovered from the United Nations Organization?
4.	Are other nations who have troops on Cyprus functioning under the same financial arrangements and, if not, what are the arrangements?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. From June 16, 1970, to June 15, 1971, approximately $2,218,755.
2. From inception to June 15, 1971, approximately $22,620,500.

June 30, 1971
Questions
3.	Approximately $3,698,400.
4.	It is believed that the United Nations does not have the same arrangements with other troop contributors as it has with Canada, but since these are the subject of confidential agreements between the nations concerned and the United Nations, Canada does not have access to such information.
Yes-when his expenses are incurred while acting on behalf of the Minister, (g) $15,600. (h) No. (i) He organized the visits of and accompanied the Minister when he visited Trois-Rivieres.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURN


Mr. Ryan: How many drug prosecutions have been commenced against persons residing at or found in Rochdale College from its opening to date?


John Carr Munro: A reply to this question would necessitate the manual search of thousands of files and the Department does not have the staff nor the funds to undertake such a project. Furthermore, this search would be unproductive since the records show only the number of prosecutions by provinces under the Narcotic Control Act and the Food and Drugs Act. For these reasons, it is regretted that the information cannot be provided.


GOVERNMENT BONDS MATURING 1972 TO 1975
Mr. Ryan: What total amounts of direct and guaranteed marketable bonds of the Government of Canada mature and must be retired in the fiscal years ending in 1972, 1973, 1974 and 1975?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Fiscal Year
1971-	72
1972-	73
1973-	74
1974-	75
($ millions) 1,683 1,877 1,799 1,499


DEPARTMENT OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT-DUTIES OF MR. JEAN-PAUL MATTE
Mr. Matie: Does the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development have a special assistant Jean-Paul Matte and, if so (a) does Mr. Matte work in the Minister's office in Ottawa (b) what is his daily and weekly schedule (c) what are his responsibilities (d) was he paid from October 1 to November 16, 1970 and from May 1 to May 31, 1971 (e) is he entitled to leave without pay and, if so, for how long (f) are some of his expenses reimbursable and, if so, which ones (g) what is his present annual salary (h) does he spend each Monday and Friday in the constituency of Champlain and, if so, for what purpose (i) did he take part in any activities connected with the by-election m Trois-Rivi&res on May 31, 1971 and, if so, was he authorized to do so by the Minister?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: (a) Yes. (b) Mr. Matte's daily and weekly schedule varies according to the nature and amount of work available at a given time, (c) To assist the Minister in discharging his responsibilities, (d) Yes. (e) Yes-on the same basis as a classified employee, (f)


CONSULTANT STUDIES FOR PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE AND PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Since July 1, 1968, what outside consultants, individuals or companies, have undertaken studies or provided assistance, etc., for (a) the Prime Minister's Office (b) the Privy Council Office?
2.	For both the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office, what were the terms of reference for each consultant or individual providing assistance?
3.	For both the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office, what was the remuneration received by each consultant?
Return tabled.


CONSULTANT STUDIES FOR GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Skoberg: 1.	For the fiscal year 1969-70, what are the estimated expenditures for outside consultant studies for each federal government department, board, crown corporation or agency?
2.	For the fiscal year 1969-70 (a) what outside consultant studies have been undertaken or are presently in progress sponsored by each federal government department or agency (b) what is the cost for each outside consultant study (c) were contracts for these studies awarded by competitive tendering and, if not, for what reasons?
Return tabled.


EXPORT CREDITS INSURANCE CORPORATION-TRANSACTIONS WITH MEXICO AND ISRAEL
Mr. Comeau: 1.	What is the total of all loans or any other transactions by Export Credits Insurance Corporation with the States of Mexico and Israel since 1960?
2.	What is the nature of each contract and sub-contract and the names of the companies involved?
Return tabled.


FEDERAL EXPENDITURES FOR STUDIES OF INDIAN HISTORY AND CULTURE
Mr. Barneli: For each of the past 10 fiscal years, how much money was spent by the government through (a) its departments (b) grants to or cost-sharing programs with the provinces (c) allocations to public agencies, e.g. Canada Council, National Museums of Canada (d) grants to other organizations or persons, for archeological, anthropological, sociological or other related studies of Indian history and culture: exclusive of studies directly related to government programs, existing or proposed, for the Indian people of Canada?
Return tabled.
June 30, 1971


DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-DESIGNATED AREAS AND SPECIAL AREAS
Mr. McGrath: By province, which (a) countries and/or census divisions (b) electoral districts are within the Department of Regional Economic Expansion (i) designated areas (ii) special areas
Return tabled.


PUBLIC SERVICE-NUMBERS OF STUDENTS HIRED UNDER FRANCOPHONE RECRUITMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Coates: ![DOT] How many university students have been hired by the Public Service of Canada under the special Francophone university recruitment program, as of this date?
2. (a) What are the names of the students in question (b) what university did they attend (c) what was their ordinary place of residence (d) what salary does each receive (e) to what department was each assigned and at what assignment?
Return tabled.


IMPORTS AND EXPORTS OF IRON AND STEEL SCRAP
Mr. Rynard: 1.	During the past three years, how many tons of iron and steel scrap were exported annually (a) to what countries was it sold (b) what was the selling price per ton?
2.	How many tons of iron and steel scrap were imported annually (a) from what countries was it imported (b) what was the cost price per ton?
3.	What was the total cost of sales promotion in the selling of scrap iron?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Notices of Motions Nos. 162, 180, 203 210 234, 236, 239 and 242.	'	'



PROPOSED INCREASE OF ALLOWABLE LEVEL OF MERCURY CONTAMINATION OF FISH

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 162-Mr. Harding:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all documents and correspondence exchanged between the government and any agency or department of the provincial governments or any other agency or persons in regard to the proposed increase of the allowable level of mercury contamination of fish.
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I move this motion on the hon. member's behalf.


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, there has not been a proposal by the government to increase the mercury tolerance level in fish and consequently there are no
Motions for Papers
documents or correspondence. For this reason may I suggest that the hon. member may wish to withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO REQUIREMENTS OF THE CORPORATIONS AND LABOUR UNIONS RETURNS ACT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 180-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all letters, memoranda, or other correspondence or documents exchanged between the Dominion Statistician or any other official or employee of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and the Deputy Minister of Labour or any other official or employee of the Department of Labour and any other party, organization or person, including copies of the minutes of all meetings and conferences, relating to an arrangement or an agreement, proposed or concluded, between the Dominion Statistician and the Department of Labour modifying, suspending, changing or amending certain reporting requirements of the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I move this motion on behalf of the hon. member.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, this motion is agreeable to the government only in so far as correspondence exchanged between officials of the government and organizations and persons outside the government is concerned. All other requests for papers within this motion cannot be agreed to as such papers are internal and considered to be privileged. If this is agreeable to the hon. member, we would be prepared to table the correspondence referred to here, subject to the consent of the unions concerned.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps the motion had better stand until the mover is here to respond to that so-called offer.
Motion stands.



CORRESPONDENCE PERTAINING TO STUDY OF THE PEACE-ATHABASCA DELTA

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 203-Mr. Yewchuk:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence, documents and agreements exchanged between the federal government and the Provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia and the Northwest Territories pertaining to the Study of the Peace-Athabasca Delta and the terms of reference of the study group or any other relevant documents.
Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, I move this motion on behalf of the hon. member.


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, the federal government is presently engaged in discussions and negotiations

June 30, 1971
Motions for Papers
with the provincial governments of Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories Administration on the Peace-Athabasca Delta problem. It is the opinion of the government that publication of correspondence, documents and agreements at this time would hinder these negotiations and studies.
For this reason, I would request that the hon. member withdraw his motion.


Gerald William Baldwin: Transfer for debate, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



COST ESTIMATE DOCUMENTS, GUARANTEED ANNUAL INCOME

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 210-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all working documents, reports, etc., undertaken in the Department of National Health and Welfare related to the cost estimates of a Guaranteed Annual Income Included in Chapter 6 of the White Paper on Income Security for Canadians.
Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Mr. Speaker, the documents the member for Winnipeg North Centre wants to have tabled in the House are working papers used by officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare and as such are considered confidential.
Since these documents cannot unfortunately be tabled in the House, I would ask the hon. member to please withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept that this should be regarded as confidential. Would you put the question, please?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



DESCRIPTION OF AREA IN PROPOSED SECOND NATIONAL PARK IN SASKATCHEWAN

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 234-Mr. Burton;
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of a description of the area which the federal government would like to see incorporated in the proposed second national park in Saskatchewan to be situated in the Val Marie-Killdeer area.
Mr. Judd Buchanan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has asked that the House do issue an order for a copy of the area the federal government would like incorporated in the proposed second national park in Saskatchewan in the Val Marie-Killdeer area. The maps and papers describing this area are under active consideration and papers relating to negotiations cannot be released until these negotiations have been
concluded. As no final decision has been made, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Burton:: I cannot accept that, Mr. Speaker. Question, please.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



AGREEMENT WITH QUEBEC ON COMPENSATION FOR CANADA STUDENT LOANS PLAN

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 236
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):: That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the agreement reached by the federal government and the government of Quebec with respect to the compensation of the Canada student loans plan.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING CLOSING OF CHEMCELL PLANT, MONTMAGNY

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 239-Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence between the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce or any officials thereof and the chairman of the Chem-cell Ltd. concerning the intention of this company to close its factory in Montmagny.
Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



COPY OF REPORT CONCERNING SECURITY CHECK ON MR. JEAN-LOUTS GAGNON

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 242-Mr. Thompson:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the comprehensive report, prepared for the Prime Minister and used by members of the Cabinet, concerning the security check on Mr. Jean-Louis Gagnon.
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I move this motion for the hon. member.


Mr. Barnett J. Danson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, there was no such comprehensive report for the use of the cabinet. A report was prepared for the Prime Minister after detailed and exhaustive investigation, and on that basis the necessary security clearance was confirmed. For reasons which are well known, such reports are not made public. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member for Red Deer would like a chance to debate this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate. Shall the remaining Notices of Motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might raise a matter with your indulgence and the indulgence

June 30, 1971

of the House. There are two Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers standing in my name, Nos. 3 and 7, which have been on the order paper since October 8. The first one relates to the Stanbury-Fields report on the income position of native Indians and taxation of reserve lands. It has been introduced in previous sessions, I might add. I was given to understand that attempts were being made to meet the request contained in the motion. I wonder if I might have an indication of what progress is being made with regard to that motion and also Notice of Motion No. 7 which deals with a study of the fish and game laws as they apply to native Indians and is of about six or seven years vintage.


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated to the hon. member that I am optimistic that we will be able to comply with his request. These two Notices of Motions require acquiescence from other groups and departments. As a matter of fact, we were discussing them this morning. I am optimistic that we will be able to respond to the motions as soon as the House reconvenes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: At the next sitting of the House.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: My question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the statement by the United States Secretary of the Interior yesterday that the TAPS route will be approved, were Canadian officials advised of this statement and, if so, did they express the strong opposition of the Parliament of Canada to the approval of this route?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, a number of statements have been made that the TAPS line will be approved, but until the United States government does give its approval, of course, these are all just expressions of opinion. The Canadian government has made it very clear that its concern is about tankers entering the narrow waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the Strait of Georgia. It is on this point that we are making our representations to the United States.


George Harris Hees: In view of the fact that the use of these waters is of prime concern, as the minister has said, has the United States government assured Canada that the use of these waters, particularly by tankers, will be reconsidered and that our view on this matter will receive serious consideration?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, both when I saw Secretary Rogers and again yesterday when an official of the Canadian government met with the State Department. The United States government has made it clear that it is aware of the dangers and they want to talk to us about the means of either minimizing or eliminating the dangers.


George Harris Hees: As the Secretary of the Interior said yesterday that this decision will be made within 75 days, has the Canadian government made it clear to the United States government that the present state of research in this whole matter does not warrant a final decision being made in that short a space of time?


Mitchell William Sharp: That has been our contention all along, Mr. Speaker. That is why we have made our representations and why various Members of Parliament, particularly on this side, who represent constituencies in British Columbia have been emphasizing this point in their private representations and in their efforts to arouse public opinion in both Canada and the United States against the dangers that lie in the movement of tankers through these narrow waters. We do not believe there has been sufficient attention paid to the dangers.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statement by Secretary of the Interior Morton that it is not a matter of whether the TAPS program will be put into effect but merely when, I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he has received any word out of the discussions he said took place yesterday in Washington and if the Canadian representatives at that meeting received any assurance or encouragement that these tankers will not be routed through the Strait of Juan de Fuca or the Strait of Georgia?


Mitchell William Sharp: When our officials met with the State Department officials yesterday, we again emphasized the points I have been making here in the House, that I made to Secretary Rogers and that our officials made previously that no massive movement of oil should take place in the inner waters of British Columbia and the State of Washington. The United States officials have said that they are very much aware of the dangers involved and are having further discussions about this to see whether the route can be altered or, if it is not altered, what can be done to minimize the dangers.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that time seems to be running out, that a definitive decision is about to be taken by the United States and that the discussions to date have been mainly at an official level, will the minister or the Prime Minister undertake to have direct contacts with their counterparts in the United States to prevent what could be a very serious tragedy on the Pacific coast?


Mitchell William Sharp: I cannot accept that statement as a statement of facts. I have had several conversations with the Secretary of State of the United States on this question.

June 30, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry THE CANADIAN ECONOMY



FOREIGN OWNERSHIP-TIME OF STATEMENT ON GOVERNMENT POSITION

Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I want to address my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that today is the last day before the summer recess, can the Prime Minister inform the House whether we may expect a statement on foreign ownership, which the government is studying and has promised to promulgate, during the summer recess or very early in the fall?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: If it is
ready during the summer, Mr. Speaker, we will state our policy at that time. If not, we will state it to the House in the fall.


Mr. Horner:: And if not in the fall, in the winter.


David Lewis: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he expects to have his policy decided at the latest by the time Parliament resumes sitting on September 7 and also whether energy resources are included in the study?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We shall do our best to get a statement out as soon as possible. The contents, will, of course, be made known to the public at the time of the statement.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Fundy-Royal: Is it
to be understood from the Prime Minister's statement at a recent press conference that the cabinet is now studying the document prepared by the Minister of National Revenue?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The document is now in cabinet hands, Mr. Speaker.



MANPOWER


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I wish to direct to the Prime Minister.
Whereas he did urge young people from southern Ontario to go look for employment in northern Manitoba and whereas the Manpower Centres in Quebec City and in Ottawa are unable to give information to the young unemployed living in other areas of the country, would the Prime Minister tell the House where exactly these jobs are available?


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion, this question as worded is out of order.



ECONOMIC COUNCIL OF CANADA


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My question is to the Minister of Finance and is related to the motion I
sought to move earlier today. Would the Minister of Finance tell the House whether he authorized the Deputy Minister of Finance to make the statement he made with regard to the Economic Council of Canada and whether he approves of it? Just what is the situation with regard to the Economic Council and what is the government's view as to its effectiveness?


Edgar John Benson: Contrary to what the hon. member said, I was not present when the words said to have been uttered by the Deputy Minister of Finance were used and I would have to look at the transcript to see exactly what he did say.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister was present at the session of the Senate committee. Did he authorize the deputy minister to make any statement with regard to the validity or value of the Economic Council of Canada?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Has the minister discussed this matter with his deputy since it was reported and, if so, what action does he propose to take? Is the government prepared to accept the resignation of the chairman of the Economic Council?


Edgar John Benson: This is the first I have heard of the matter. I will have to read the transcript of the evidence given to the committee.



AGRICULTURE


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In light of the fact that farm cash receipts for the first quarter of 1971 are down by 5.8 per cent for the whole of Canada, compared with the corresponding quarter of 1970, is the minister considering the initiation of discussions with the provincial Ministers of Agriculture with a view to providing emergency income assistance to farmers nationally?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: We are not
contemplating a meeting exactly in those terms but I shall be meeting with the provincial Ministers of Agriculture on July 21, I believe.


John Angus MacLean: In view of the fact that farm cash receipts in some provinces are down by much more than the figure I have quoted-in Prince Edward Island they have fallen by some 20 per cent-what action has the government taken to arrange discussions with the government of the United Kingdom with a view to protecting the interests of Canadian farm producers in profitable markets in the event of the United Kingdom joining the Common Market?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me this question was asked just a few days ago.

June 30. 1971



IMMEDIATE IMPLEMENTATION OF TRANSITIONAL PAYMENT TO PRAIRIE FARMERS

Mr. R. R. Soulham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: In
view of the serious decline in farm cash receipts, amounting to 5.8 per cent as has just been mentioned, will the government give serious consideration to paying the $100 million transitional acreage payment to western farmers whose cash receipts are much lower than the national average?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That payment could be made very quickly if Bill C-244 were passed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



INTERPROVINCIAL MARKETING-VALIDITY OF PROVINCIAL MARKETING BOARD ORDERS-REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: May I ask the
Minister of Justice whether, in light of the decision by the Supreme Court on the Manitoba application establishing the authority of the federal government, it is his intention to seek a decision from the Supreme Court respecting the validity of the marketing orders which have been issued or are being issued by provincial marketing boards and provincial governments as a further move to establish the federal authority?


John Napier Turner: I stated when the decision was announced on Monday that I would be discussing the significance of that decision with the Minister of Agriculture. We shall be announcing further government policies in due course.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: May I point out to the Minister of Justice that I did not ask whether consultation was in progress. I asked what would be the legal approach, the legal attitude of the minister and the government.


John Napier Turner: I think the hon.
member is asking about the legal approach. He is really asking what the policy repercussions of the decision will be, and I have told him that this question is being
reviewed.



INTERPROVINCIAL MARKETING-QUEBEC POSITION RESPECTING SUPREME COURT DECISION-REFERENCE TO COURT

David Orlikow: In view of the fact that officials of FEDCO have announced that in their opinion the decision of the Supreme Court in the Manitoba case does not affect the operations of FEDCO, which probably means that until a decision has been reached by the Quebec courts nothing will be changed for the Manitoba producers, would the government give consideration to making an early reference of this matter to the Supreme Court of Canada?
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Napier Turner: As I understand it, that particular case is currently before the Court of Appeal in Quebec and will proceed eventually, I suppose, to the Supreme Court of Canada.



QUEBEC-CONSTITUTIONALITY OF OPERATIONS OF FEDCO

Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice a supplementary question.
Could he tell the House whether the Quebec egg marketing agency called FEDCO got in touch with him or with his office in order to ascertain that its activities in the province of Quebec are constitutional?


John Napier Turner: Not so far as
I know, Mr. Speaker.


Gerald William Baldwin: Will the government not take advantage of the right it has to apply to intervene in the Quebec case and facilitate the rapid passage of that case through the Appeal Court and then to the Supreme Court of Canada so that an authoritative decision can be had?


John Napier Turner: The federal government has taken a positive course already. The Supreme Court accepted most of the arguments put forward in the faction of the federal government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



INTERPROVINCIAL MARKETING-EARLY CONSIDERATION OF FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING AGENCIES BILL AFTER SUMMER RECESS

Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Joliette wish to ask a supplementary question?


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolietie):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would
like to ask a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Since Bill C-176 represents the last hope for the farmers, taking into account the Supreme Court ruling and since the farmers will have to wait until fall to benefit from this bill, would the Minister of Agriculture assure the House that he will recommend to the government that Bill C-176 be one of the first pieces of legislation to be discussed after the summer recess.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I might like to recommend that course, but there are some other priorities which have already been announced.


Mr. Bell:: We found that out last night.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We have already had quite a few supplementaries on this subject. The hon. member for Regina East will be recognized and then I shall recognize the hon. member for Algoma on a different subject, I hope.
7518

June 30, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



IMMEDIATE IMPLEMENTATION OF TRANSITIONAL PAYMENT TO PRAIRIE FARMERS

John Stratford Burton: I have a supplementary question to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. Having regard to the willingness of members of the House to give immediate passage to the transitional payment provision in Bill C-244, is the minister considering immediate steps, before adjournment today, to split the bill in order that the transitional payment can be made to farmers immediately?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to have Bill C-244 go forward so that the payments could be made, if the obstruction of the NDP in particular is now ended, but as I have said before-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-INVESTIGATION OF CHARGES

Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State but in his absence perhaps the parliamentary secretary would respond. In view of the serious problems concerning the Opportunities for Youth program in northern Ontario, which were raised last week in the question period, can the parliamentary secretary say whether any investigation into these charges has been carried out and what the results of the investigation are?


Mr. James Hugh Faulkner (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is referring specifically to a statement made by the hon. member for Cochrane in which he made a number of charges, those charges that relate specifically to projects have been investigated. I am prepared to meet with him at any time and go over his specific objections with him. As to the general, vague and irresponsible charges about people in the department which were made in his statement, I suggest he has two honourable courses. One is to withdraw his charges and apologize; the other is to specify the individuals he has in mind.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, in view of the continued absence from the House of the Secretary of State, will the Prime Minister confirm that he has been banished and appointed to the Northern Canada Power Development Corporation?



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State
for External Affairs concerning the arms shipments which were nearly put aboard the vessel Padma which arrived in Montreal yesterday. Can he advise whether Maritime Aircraft Overhaul and Repair Limited was granted an export permit? If so, was the company also given the indication that such permit had been cancelled?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the procedure in granting export permits is that sometimes permits are given in advance at the time an application is made for shipment at a later date, but always subject to suspension or cancellation of the permits if in the meantime government policy has had to be changed, as it had to be with respect to the particular case involving Pakistan. In this instance the export permit has been suspended.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the
minister whether all companies that have received such permits have now been informed of Canada's attitude on the arms embargo. I should also like to ask the further question whether or not there might be similar categories of arms that the government might not know about, not having good sources of information?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I had a review made in anticipation of this situation within the last few days, and I am advised that all companies who had export permits outstanding and which involved shipment of militarily sensitive items to Pakistan have been advised that their export permits have been suspended.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: A further supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair will recognize a further supplementary from the hon. member for Hillsborough, but I invite hon. members to co-operate with the Chair and to try to limit their supplementaries since we shall be running short of time and there are a number of members seeking an opportunity to ask questions.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister whether the company in Moncton I referred to was advised directly of the government's attitude before the goods arrived on the pier at Montreal.


Mitchell William Sharp: No, I do not think so. I had a review made of all the outstanding export permits within the last few days and it is my understanding that they were advised only after the shipment had been sent to Montreal for loading aboard the Padma. I should add that as far as applications for export licences are concerned I have issued none for some weeks now, but there were, as the hon. member has remarked, some outstanding that had to be suspended.


INQUIRY AS TO PAY INCREASE FOR MEMBERS' SECRETARIES
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether my question should be

June 30, 1971

directed to Your Honour or the President of the Treasury Board, but I will try the latter. Can the minister inform the House whether or not a decision on the long overdue and highly justified pay increase for members' secretaries has now been reached, and, if so, when it will take effect?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the revision of pay scales for the secretaries has been considered as part of the review, and it is hoped that the necessary adjustments will be made in the near future.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could avoid using the term "the near future" for once and ask the minister to be a little more precise. Can he tell us when our secretaries might receive their pay increase?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I cannot, I regret to say, give the exact date but I will endeavour to inform myself and advise the hon. member.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is of a compassionate nature and I hope I can frame it correctly. In the absence of the Solicitor General may I direct it to the Minister of Justice. In view of the allegations by the family of Mr. William Knight, the prisoner who acted as spokesman during the recent problem at Kingston, that he appears to have been grossly physically mistreated and that neither his minister, his lawyer nor members of his family are permitted to visit or to contact him to verify his condition, will the minister look into the matter since it is causing his family such understandable concern?


John Napier Turner: I will indeed, Mr. Speaker. I will refer the question immediately to the Solicitor General.


CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: My
question is for the right hon. Prime Minister and arises out of reports on the Victoria conference. It has been reported that the federal government and its secretariat were the only participants at the Victoria conference aware of all the prior briefs of the provinces. Did the government of Canada not distribute the briefs it received from the provinces before the conference to all the other provinces prior to the commencement of the meeting in Victoria?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what the hon. member means when he refers to briefs. The procedure at Victoria was that a series of proposed or draft constitutional texts was prepared in consultation with all delegations at the official and ministerial level between the period February to June. These texts were in the hands of all delegations. It is true that some provinces came forward with new texts in the last days and I am not sure whether they were given by those provinces to the other provinces, but as far as I know they were.




Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Did the Secretary of State for External Affairs receive a telegram from the Ukrainian-Canadian
committee protesting the Russian ambassador's interference yesterday in the Man and His World ethnic museum whereby he requested that the flags of the Ukraine, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Czechoslovakia, Armenia and Poland be torn down and replaced with a Russian flag?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I have received such a telegram, but now the hon. member has drawn my attention to it, I will check with my office.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. I think the Prime Minister should find out the details of what happened at Quebec's Man and His World, and if this interference has taken place then I think he should reprimand


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is not, of course, a question. The hon. member is making a statement and he has no right to do that at this time.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that tomorrow, July 1, certain changes in the pensions of former employees of Canadian Pacific Railway come into effect, and in view of the unfairness of the provision that gives no increase whatever to persons who retired prior to 1956, would the minister indicate to the House what progress he has made in persuading the Canadian Pacific Railway to correct this unfairness?
24171-56^

June 30, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing specific that I can report other than to advise the hon. member and the House that I have conveyed to Canadian Pacific the views of various members on this issue and have in a sense suggested to them that it might be advisable for them to reconsider their position. However, I have not had any response.


David Orlikow: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In
view of the large number of complaints which are coming in to members, and I am sure to the minister, from CPR employees who are not covered by their plan, and in view of the vast difference between the CPR plan and the CNR plan, would the minister discuss with the CPR the question of the tremendous concession given the CPR in respect of the extension of time under which they will have to fund their plan, a concession given to no other company in Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That of course is a suggestion or representation.


PROVISION OF DRUGS FOR LOW INCOME GROUPS
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As a result of his talks
with his provincial counterparts, can we expect drug care coverage for old age pensioners and those on low income who in many cases may not have the necessary funds to pay for drugs.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, in many provinces this is already provided for under the Canada Assistance Plan. People living on low incomes who establish need do receive drugs, and we do share the cost under that plan.


HARBOURS
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Could the minister give us a brief report on the meetings and negotiations with Premier Hatfield of the province of New Brunswick with regard to the big port development at Saint John.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I believe I would be reflecting the view of the premier of New Brunswick, as well as my own, when I say the meetings last Thursday were very profitable and co-operative. A number of alternatives were proposed and we indicated our willingness to co-operate to the maximum. The premier has taken the results of the

discussion back to Fredericton for further study, and has indicated he will let me know in a couple of weeks.


CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
Mr. Henry Laiulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Would he indicate whether there have been new talks with Quebec in order to solve the difficulties? Would he say also what are the main objections of Quebec and what is the substance of its requirements?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there has been no communication between the Quebec Premier and myself since he said no to the Victoria charter.


AIR CANADA
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of Air Canada's enthusiasm in respect of reducing transAtlantic air fares, is the government encouraging Air Canada to develop the same enthusiasm in respect of reducing rates within Canada so that Canadians might see Canada first.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The
answer is yes, Mr. Speaker. I believe that before too long Air Canada will have put together in a package a number of special rates within Canada, comparable in some respects at least to those now offered for overseas destinations. Certainly, I have conveyed to Air Canada that this is the desire of the government and that we think it would be very much worthwhile.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that meat, produced after diethyl-stilbe-strol has been used in the process, has been banned for food in some countries, has the minister given any consideration to introducing legislation to prohibit the use of this material for production of food in this country.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker, although I can advise the hon. member there is a nil tolerance in so far as residue of this substance in any meat coming on the market in Canada or any place is concerned.
June 30, 1971


AIRPORTS
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. Recently in Toronto, the Prime Minister stated that the federal government had agreed upon a site for the new auxiliary airport at Toronto. I now ask the minister if he is in a position to advise the House of that site, and if not when he might advise us.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing new on this question since I reported on it last, I believe in answer to a question from the hon. member. It is true we have, in a sense, a preferred site among the number proposed. What we have suggested to the province of Ontario is that we proceed at a particular site, but always leave open the option of having that changed subsequent to such representations as would bring about that result. We are still waiting to hear from the province of Ontario as to its reaction to this proposal. I repeat that they are examining all the implications before doing so, but I would hope we would get some answer soon.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister say whether or not the federal government has offered the same cost-sharing arrangement to the province of Ontario as was offered to the province of Quebec in connection with the St. Scholastique airport.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the minister might reply briefly, but that would seem to be precisely the kind of question the hon. member asked a few days ago.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to answer briefly. I have indicated our willingness to discuss with the province of Ontario some form of cost-sharing with regard to the various facilities involved at the airport project, but this is hypothetical until we know the precise site and until we know what services will be necessary.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilion Wesi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport one short question. Has the province of Ontario given any indication to the minister concerning when it will hand down its decision in respect of this matter.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Speaker. In fairness, I do not wish to suggest there is some sort of deliberate resistance in this matter. I have repeated in the House many times that it is a very complex question and that they want to examine all the data relating to it. All I have said is that I am prepared to proceed with the discussions whenever they wish to do so, and I would hope that would be soon.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. I would like to know if it is likely that a decision will be made by the province of Ontario, which might be disruptive for some reason, prior to a provincial election.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps we could have order because we are running short of time. There are only six minutes remaining before the end of the question period.


MANPOWER
Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister since it involves more than one department, Fisheries and Manpower among them. Has the government as yet made a decision on the request of the government of Manitoba that 50 per cent of the cost of income support and retraining programs for fishermen put out of work because of mercury pollution of the fisheries be borne by the government of Canada.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will have to refer the question to the Minister of Fisheries.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the
Prime Minister if he would treat this as an urgent matter, since the program began in June and the representations began in early spring.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Agriculture tell us what progress has been made in controlling the outbreak of anthrax in Wood Buffalo National Park.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the House that anthrax has been positively identified in some of the specimens that were taken from the carcasses. We have a team of veterinarians and other officials there to take the necessary action to quarantine the other animals in the area, to burn or bury the carcasses there and to take the other usual precautions in respect of an anthrax outbreak.


HARBOURS
Mr. Waller C. Carler (SI. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works concerning an application by the Newfoundland government for assistance to provide docking facilities at Come-By-Chance. Can the minister say whether this application has been approved.

June 30, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, we have forwarded our copies of the agreement to the three Crown corporations.


Walter C. Carter: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell the House if the guarantee by the government of the province of Newfoundland has been given yet.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, the guarantee which has been made to us has been made on behalf of three Crown corporations.
# * *


INDUSTRY
Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. If the exports and profits of the Canadian pulp and paper industry are declining, why is the government at this time sponsoring two new pulp mills, one in Saskatchewan and one in Quebec.


Mr. Speaker:: That obviously is not a proper question.


POLLUTION
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Urban Affairs. Can the minister give any indication whether any funds will be made available through CMHC to sewage treatment plants as urged yesterday by the provincial minister responsible for the environment.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Knight Andras: -the funds allocated to the CMHC capital budget for sewage treatment have gone up from $36 million to $50 million to $87 million in the last three years. This does not mean that all demands, requirements or allocations will not be increased this year. We will have a look at it again next year.


WHEAT-POSSIBLE EXTENSION OF CROP YEAR
Richard Russell Southam: have a question for the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Is it the intention of the government to extend the 1971 crop year to better facilitate the equalization of grain quotas and marketings?


Otto Emil Lang: The extension of the crop year is one of those
things which might have been possible if Bill C-238 had been passed. The hope and expectation of the Wheat Board, as last reported to me, is that quotas may be equalized. They are generally equalized now at very high levels, except in regard to wheat, and the Wheat Board is quite optimistic that they should be able to have an eight bushel quota-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: I wonder if the Prime Minister is now in a position to reply to the question the Leader of the Opposition put two days ago with respect to rejection by any of the provinces of the federal government's offer to the provinces on offshore mineral rights.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I checked the record, and the assertion I made in the House is essentially right. The federal offer has not been officially rejected by any of the governments of the provinces. We know that some of them are not willing to proceed very rapidly with it and we may want to have other meetings with them, as I said the other day in the House, but there has been no official rejection.


TRANSPORT
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: My question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Since we are approaching our summer recess, if the minister cannot answer my question now perhaps he might make a statement when we come back regarding the state of the national transportation policy. The act passed in 1967 included compensatory rates for all modes of transport, but the fate of truckers is still very much in the air. Can the minister say when Part III will be proclaimed and why it has not been yet?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: In
point of fact, Part III was proclaimed several months ago, but no action has been taken as a result. It was a first step. Meetings with provinces and appropriate ministers were held a month or so ago for discussions on the method of implementation and they will continue over the next few months.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: It is a very important matter in view of the fact that the truckers were in town during the last
June 30, 1971

two or three days. Would the minister use his great influence with the chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission to get that gentleman to have uniform regulations proclaimed, so that truckers will not refuse to move under Part III, which is what they are going to do?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I will be very pleased to do that, and in fact have already talked to the Canadian Transport Commission about it. But may I say with respect that the matter does lie primarily with the provinces at present. We have put forward certain proposals to the provinces which will enable us to take over those aspects of it which have to do with interprovincial regulations, but the provinces have not up to this moment-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Vancouver East.


HARBOURS
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: I should like to address my question to the obviously very popular and genial Minister of Transport.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Edward Winch: I put it that way in the hopes of getting an answer. It was a year ago when the Minister of Transport told me that in the immediate future he would be making a decision as to whether the Columbia wheat elevator in my riding was to be rehabilitated or torn down. Can he now give me a message that I could carry back to my constituents?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: will see to it that one is transmitted to the member this afternoon in detail. I am speaking from memory. Incidentally, the hon. member was away for some time and we are all delighted to see him back. I will have a written report in his hands this afternoon on the state of that particular issue.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Sl. Barbe):: My question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the disappointment expressed across the country at the loss of opportunities for youth to serve under the student militia program because of cutbacks in the Department of National Defence, would the Prime Minister consider reassessing the situation and directing that the civilian training phase of this non-military program due to start on July 12 be increased in order to give the advantages to youth which the course affords?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I did not
hear the whole question because of the noises made by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings. I did gather, however, that it was a question having to do with the Minister of National Defence, and I will draw it to his attention.


Jack Marshall: In view of the fact that recruiting for this course starts in five days time, would the Prime Minister please treat it as an urgent matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the hon. member for Algoma has a supplementary question. Perhaps he might be allowed to ask it.


INDUSTRY
Maurice Brydon Foster: My question was for the
Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, but in his absence I should like to direct it to his parliamentary secretary. In view of the difficulties of the pulp and paper industry, which have resulted in temporary shutdowns of some plants, can the parliamentary secretary say whether any specific action is being taken to reverse this trend? I am wondering in particular whether the department will take some action to increase our export sales to Europe because of the reduced tariff which will be in effect with the entry of England into the Common Market.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Yes, produce more white papers.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: The difficulties of the pulp and paper industry are known to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and numerous discussions have been taking place with officials of the industry. I would remind the hon. member that the recent negotiations with the United Kingdom in connection with their entry into the EEC have produced a very favourable position for the Canadian industry in that there will be duty-free quotas for Canadian pulp and paper. But I would also remind-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The parliamentary secretary cannot make a statement at this time. I might say that the hon. member put a very general question which normally should have been replied to by way of a statement on motions. I do not think that a statement should be made at this time.
We have just about run out of time. With the consent of the House, the Chair might allow one question to be put by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, and we will finish our question period with a question by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

June 30, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


QUEBEC-ALLEGED CONTINUED USE OF WAK MEASURES ACT POWERS BY POLICE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: My question is
for the Minister of Justice. Can the minister say whether or not he has investigated reports from Quebec that some of the police in that province are still using some of the extraordinary powers of arrest which were given to them under the War Measures Act during the crisis?


John Napier Turner: I will take that up with the Attorney General of Quebec.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
George Harris Hees: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of his statement yesterday before the Senate banking and finance committee to the effect that Canadians have learned to live with inflation, can he now advise the House what yearly increase in the rate of inflation the government is willing to live with before it will take steps to control inflation?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker.


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe it was by agreement of the House that the hon. member was allowed to
ask a question because we ran out of time a few minutes ago. Orders of the day.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I ask the indulgence of the House in view of the matter I wish to raise. I have been trying to obtain the floor to pose a question with respect to the strike in the salmon industry in British Columbia which is crucial.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frank Howard: If the Liberals do not want to give me their consent to ask my question that is fine; I will not do so.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Frank Howard: It shows they are not interested.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Timiskaming rising on a point of order?


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker on a question of privilege I should like to raise a matter with the Minister of Justice. Many Members of Parliament are receiving a large number of letters, especially those who are most involved in the legal process, from penitentiaries, particularly in the Kingston area, concerning abuses that are being inflicted on prisoners who were involved in the Kingston

riot some time ago. Members of Parliament are not allowed to investigate these problems, but the charges are being made. A court inquiry into this matter has been established. On a point of privilege, I would like to appeal to the Minister of Justice to at least investigate-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member sought and obtained the floor on a question of privilege. What he is doing now is making a representation to the minister. If members are allowed to use the question period to make representations to the government, we might have a rather extended question period. In any event, I suggest to the hon. member that he has appealed to the minister and he has to assume that his appeal has been heard.


John Napier Turner: On this point, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the representation of the hon. member for Timiskaming has been heard. On a point of order relating to the point brought up by the hon. member for Skeena, I would like it to be recorded that the reason he could not put his question was that the time for the question period ran out.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Orders of the day. Is the hon. member for Skeena rising on a point of order or question of privilege?


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I realize the time for the question period ran out. It is the Liberal government that does not want to deal with this question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, June 29, consideration of the motion of Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance) that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.
Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, last night, I was saying that the economy was on an uneven keel and that there are solutions to restore balance. I also said that the unbalance is caused by financiers who are now taking advantage of the situation. I also stated that banks were creating money and devising means of payment out of nothing, except for small entries in their books and through cheques which they draw on their own funds, thus allowing themselves to negotiate purchases with drafts that do not have much value.
Treasury bills and Canada savings bonds as well as all taxes and surtaxes that we pay are used increasingly to pay the debt unknown to Canadians through financial means that reinforce the discretionary power of banks on the lives of individuals and governments. Therefore, the
June 30, 1971

government has become a mere valet deprived of all sovereignty over the issuance of money and credit.
Whatever government is in power, Canada will always be at the mercy of atrocious finance. This will last until the government regains control over money and credit for natural resources development and financing of public undertakings which would require new credit based on the same values, except that there would be no interest on repayment. This would be done at depreciation cost, at the rate of 5 per cent per year, and all debts should be amortized in 20 years.
Those who tolerate the way the present financial system works are responsible for the present economic chaos. One terrible day, the people will ask for an accounting.
As Canadians develop the country, high finance takes possession of it. Its high priests bear the responsibility for leaving the people in ignorance; it is the just society for the financiers and their friends.
The insecurity, the troubles, and the loss of confidence being felt are due to this absolute control over our lives and our institutions.
The yoke of heartless finance, Mr. Speaker, holds us and sinks us deeper into stagnation. We may try, by all sorts of means, to improve our lot, to find new solutions and methods that would be in accordance with scientific and technological progress, all is useless, because finance exploits us and takes our money as soon as we earn it.
As we borrow, amounts to the credit of Canadians are passed to the credit of financial institutions, through mere bookkeeping entries and the big capitalists become the owners of everything we do or build. They are the masters of our entire economy.
We pay taxes to reimburse those same institutions and over $2 billion in interest this year. They will be paid more interest next year and it will go on year after year, because taxes will again be increased.
We could, Mr. Speaker, grant discounts on prices, which would lower the cost of living. We would settle the problem or if we prefer, we would make up the difference through a dividend. Thus 22 million Canadians would have 22 million times as much purchasing power.
We lack purchasing power because there is not enough money in circulation, and the money does not circulate long enough, for it is withdrawn much too soon by the financial system. Furthermore, the reimbursement of money plus interest causes the economy to be unsteady. It thus becomes practically impossible to develop the economy and to create any economic stability which would benefit the population. That diabolical system throws the economy off balance as solutions are being investigated.
Mr. Speaker, what we need to solve this problem is the guaranteed income directly payable from 1971 surpluses.
During 1971, our production was $90 billion; consumption was $54 billion and capitalization $36 billion, includ-
The Budget-Mr. Lang
ing $30 billion capitalized by big corporations as against $6 billion only by individuals.
That is one of the only ways of restoring economic balance and distributing the wealth to Canadian people almost without levying taxes since there would be no more debts. Taxes would be levied only to pay government administration, which would probably not exceed 1 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, until we take the necessary means to put the economy on an even keel through a financial system that would be sounder, more adequate, more in accordance with reality, we shall experience difficulties. Economists will keep on making investigations of all kinds, they will try to find all sorts of means, will bring up numerous programs and new departments will be created in order to serve the people and stabilize our economy. But the more we will play that game, the more our economy will be out of kilter. As time goes on, we sink deeper, the economic situation is getting worse and the people enjoy fewer services and are less satisfied.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the budget this year culminated a long period of very intensive discussion in Canada about our taxation system. It included, of course, the announcement of immediate tax changes and of changes for a number of years to come. In the course of making these changes, it was possible to examine the way in which the existing tax load is borne by different segments of our community and to look again at what should be included as income for taxation purposes when determining who should pay and how much.
The most significant addition on the side of taxes, where taxes had not been collected before, was the introduction of a capital gains tax in Canada for the first time. With this introduction we were, of course, simply joining many other areas of the world where this particular form of improvement in position had been subject to tax for some years. The inclusion of capital gains as income for taxation purposes at one half the rate of other accretions does, in fact, introduce into the treasury eventually a very significant amount of money. The half rate is justifiable in terms of the significant possibility that a portion of any apparent gain is in reality an adjustment in terms of the value of the dollars being obtained in the sale of a product. Including half, therefore, allows for a partial offset against the effect of inflation in raising the value of goods which it would be unfair to tax in full. The introduction of additional income in this manner, and in some other ways, within the budget meant that it was possible to raise the amount of money required with a reduction in tax in some very important areas.
The most fundamental improvements really attach to the increase in personal exemptions which will be occur-ing with the commencement of 1972. The increase in exemption to $1,500 for a single taxpayer and to $2,850 for a married taxpayer means that a much greater portion of the money earned by low income groups, working

June 30, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Lang
people whose incomes are not high, is left in their hands. More important, Canadians are satisfied that we must do many things to assist those who have levels of income lower than some desirable target in order that they may have the means to a decent livelihood. What could be more sensible, then, than to leave in the hands of those who are working, but whose income levels have not approached this target, more of their income; what could be more sensible than to shift the tax burden, the payment of taxes in whole, from those at very low levels of earning power and in significant degree from those at relatively low levels of earning power, to others in our community?
This shifting of our tax burden assists the lower income groups wherever they may be. It assists the worker in the city, it assists the man on minimum wage, it assists the farmer in difficult circumstances and it assists all of these in recognition of their own efforts to attempt to earn an income, to attempt on their own to supply themselves and their families with what they need. It recognizes that in these circumstances the general services provided in Canada through the government, and through the taxpayers generally for all, should be paid for by those who have more and who therefore can better afford to support the services which we all want. This kind of change does have a significant impact in the farming communities of Canada. These are areas where for many years a good number of people, working hard at producing a livelihood for themselves and producing great value for Canada, have had incomes in the lower levels. The higher exemptions are of direct benefit to these persons.
We have heard a great deal recently about the financial difficulties of the farm community and, in particular, about the difficulties which recent figures indicate may be more severe in the prairie regions than in any other region of Canada. A great deal has been said about figures comparing 1970 net incomes in the Prairie region to those in 1969. I think it is important to attempt to put these figures into perspective, Mr. Speaker. Without any doubt, in this region we have gone through a very serious period of difficulty for our farmers. It was a period in which sales were lower than had been expected, a period which, thankfully in this regard, is now past as we approach record sales for this current year. It was a period where their total receipts were bound to be affected by the drop in sales and prices as a whole.
As I say, I think it is important to put the figures in perspective. It has been pointed out that the total net income in the Prairie region has fallen by 36.9 per cent when comparing 1970 to 1969. It is important to note that at the same time net realized income fell by only 1.2 per cent in those two years. That is the real figure on which to pin one's attention when attempting to compare two years like that. The bulk of the additional change, which makes the figure seem so high, results from a change in inventory, a reduction in quantities of wheat which have not been reckoned in terms of the real position in which the farmer is. That inventory had grown larger than he had wanted it, and valuing it at market prices simply distorts the figures. The 1.2 per cent drop is none the less

significant. It is significant particulary because neither of those years might be considered as adequate to provide sufficient income for a very large majority of the producers, and particularly the grain producers in that region.
It is interesting to note that in the figures which led to the conclusion that there was a 1.2 per cent drop in net income between 1969 and 1970, also show a drop on the cost side with regard to operating and depreciation charges as between those two years. While costs generally rise over any period of time, the 1970 figure for operating and depreciation charges is 1.4 per cent lower than it was for 1969. This is no doubt due in part to adjusted farm practices and also to the fact that with the increase in summerfallow and with a decrease in wheat acreage in 1970, lower farm expenses resulted, as had been anticipated.
In that period in 1970, the net realized receipts include, of course, $57 million paid to farmers under the Lift program. The figures for 1969 and 1970 also include a change in the cash advance situation. It is important here to notice that in 1969, the income figure is much higher than it otherwise would have been because in that year farmers relied heavily on cash advances, to the extent that, by the end of 1969, something in the order of $240 million was still owing in cash advances by prairie farmers. That shows as cash receipts for 1969 in those figures. By the end of 1970, the cash advance situation showed an outstanding indebtedness of just over $126 million. This means that in the year a reduction of $115 million in outstanding cash advances had taken place. Hence, the cash position was little changed from one year to the next and, hence again, the net receipt position was little changed from one year to the next.
This adjustment, or this problem of the farmer having to repay his cash advances, was recognized by the government which introduced a number of programs. I mentioned the $57 million which was paid out under the Lift program to farmers. There were, at the same time, significant payments in terms of handling the deficit for the previous wheat, barley and oats pools. A total of approximately $50 million went out in that way. In addition to recognizing those difficulties, the government introduced a number of programs which are now beginning to bear fruit and which will bear fruit in the years ahead.
The program by which the government extends credit facilities to the Canadian Wheat Board is one of the very significant builders for the future. Under this program, in certain cases, the government pays a portion of the interest charge incurred, especially in the case of developing countries which happen also to be developing markets. Some millions of dollars are spent in each year in supporting interest rates connected with wheat sales to these countries. What is not often realized is that for this portion of the program, as for other credit transactions embarked on by the Canadian Wheat Board, if grain is sold abroad on credit the Canadian government guarantees the credit of the buyer. At the present time approxi-
June 30, 1971

mately $300 million in total credit is guaranteed in this way by the government. This means that the total risk of non-payment is shifted from the farmer to the government under this program.
Also as a builder for the future, the government this year introduced the market development program which this year, next year and thereafter, will make available $10 million per year for a variety of imaginative projects for the promotion of our grain sales. Under this program the first expenditure has been allocated to the Canadian grain institute, that being the institute which will be created in Winnipeg, to allow the development there of facilities for demonstrating the best modern methods of milling flour, of crushing rapeseed and handling meal. The program will allow us to bring to Canada from among our customers, people who can learn the advantages there first hand not only of the most modern techniques but also the characteristics of Canadian grain which they may thereafter use in their own countries.
Under this market development head as well, we will be looking at the question of new facilities for product development and for research into new and different ways of moving our product to market. We will also be looking at concrete proposals for the establishment of facilities abroad, where these may assist in the development of markets there. We will be willing to look at proposals for grant, loan or equity assistance where companies in Canada are interested in projects abroad. These may be for the milling of flour, for storage facilities, for crushing facilities for oil seeds or in connection with new ideas which may be brought forward to establish a better place in those markets abroad for Canadian grains.
The Canadian government recognized in total the difficult cash position of the prairie farmer, and this led to the announcement of a package of proposals which were discussed with producers from October until March and which then emerged in legislation. Without these proposals the government, in the fiscal years 1970-71 and 197172, would have been called upon to spend $60 million under TWRA in the first year and $26 million in the second year, for a total of $86 million. It would have been called upon to pay a total of $2 million in connection with the Prairie Farm Assistance Act administration. The total expenditures without these proposals would therefore have been $88 million.
In the proposals put forward, in place of this $88 million, there is a total program over a two-year period valued at $189.5 million, which is $101.5 million more than would have been spent if there had been no changes. First among these would be the transitional payment of $100 million to prairie farmers. This transitional payment was designed as a result of the recognition of the intention to terminate the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, effective as of August 1, 1970, and of the fact that benefits under the stabilization program could not begin until the crop year beginning August 1, 1971, had begun. That was to be a transitional payment directly related to the repeal of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. We recognized the cash needs of the prai-
The Budget-Mr. Lang
rie farmer and desired to put $100 million into the hands of the farmers as quickly as possible.
In addition, under the stabilization program the government would have been committed to expenditures of approximately $36 million in the crop year 1971-72. The prairie farm administration would have continued, at an expenditure of $2 million for those two years. The cost of the administration of the stabilization program would have amounted to about $1.5 million, for a total expenditure of $139.5 million. Also related to these programs was the grassland incentive program which would make available to prairie farmers approximately $15 million in each of 1971 and 1972. In addition, the marketing development program would have put into the cost of the grain selling market $10 million in each year for an overall total of $189.5 million. It is a matter of great regret that the $100 million will now be delayed. This matter was first put forward as a total package and program for discussions with producers in October, 1970. It then went through many months of discussion toward improvements which were announced in March, and was then before this House for many days. Three bills emerged to give effect to this program.
On second reading, these bills were before this House for all or part of 10 days; May 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 14, 17, 20, 26 and 31. One of these, the cash advance changes, seemed to be supported by all who spoke, but none the less members spoke for three days. These bills were in committee on May 18, 20, 25, 26, June 1, 2, 3, 8, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 22. They were back in the House for the report stage, and one was dealt with on June 9, 10 and 22 and again for third reading on June 18 and 21. I refer to the cash advance bill. This amount of House time was spent in an attempt to move these bills forward so that the $100 million could be paid out. It would have been right to pay it out as early as possible because the cash problem of the prairie farmers is particularly serious at the present time.
The record movement of grain which is now taking place, and which gives every sign of continuing, would begin to ease the problem in the year ahead. Cash advances a year ago, June 18, 1970, stood at $190 million. On June 18, 1971, they stood at $71 million. Approximately $119 million have been paid back by farmers who found it less necessary to take advantage of cash advances in that year. This means that the balance owing on cash advances by the end of this crop year will be significantly reduced. This reduction occurred, of course, through the devotion of a significant portion of grain income in the year out of the very rapid movement of grain to the repayment of cash advances.
It was for this reason in particular that it seemed desirable to get this money into the farmers hands as soon as possible. It is now apparent that this will not happen for some months as the legislation has been stalled in the way which I have described. All this time the opposition parties have further taken the position throughout the prairie region of trying to seize upon the

June 30, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Lang
very real difficulties which exist in the farming industry and to distort every attitude and program of the government to cause fear and foreboding as far as possible in the farmers of that region. To some extent, one must agree they have been successful.
It will be important to try and reverse that trend, to emphasize to farmers throughout that region and everywhere that it is the objective of this government to not only help financially, as I have described, but also to do what has to be done whether it be with regard to the quota system or the transportation and handling system to make these parts work well. The individual farmer has no control over these. Therefore, he deserves such support as can be offered to make them work well so that to the greatest extent possible he can obtain from his production the largest possible returns. This does not indicate the over-all level of income the farmer will have. It is not a policy of unlimited support for farmers of any size, but it is a policy of support for all farmers and the emphasis this year is to be in favour of the owner of a small farm, a farm up to a tolerable, effective and efficient size. This is particularly highlighted in the change we propose from the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act to the stabilization plan.
Under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, the government money went only to wheat. One should ask why wheat and not other grains. This was a bias in favour of one grain and distorted the proper decisions of the individual farmers. It not only went only to wheat, but went on a per bushel basis so that the largest farmers, however large, shared proportionately with the small farmers, however small. It was directly related to the delivery of wheat. If any money came through to the farmer, it came through on a per bushel basis with the largest farmer getting the largest share. If the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act policy of the past is maintained next year, it is estimated that a total of $26 million will have gone into the wheat pool and this is only really maintaining higher stocks in commercial storage than may be necessary. Under the stabilization plan, it is estimated that $36 million will go into the stabilization fund. When this is paid out, it will be paid out within fixed limits so that the very large farmers, those whose gross receipts are over $15,000, do not share in the treasury money which goes into the fund. Whatever money is available is to be divided, particularly among those farmers up to a size of some tolerable efficiency.
It is the determination of this government to use the finances of the treasury to help as much as possible the maximum number of farmers toward a better standard of living and toward an effective operation. The opposition and farm organizations always argue that whatever is paid by the treasury, $200 million or $300 million, more should be paid. They argue this, particularly in the prairie region, while some of their colleagues are apt to be criticizing in other parts of the country every penny that is spent.
In the discussions concerning the stabilization program, no real constructive proposals were put forward with
regard to this policy by farm organizations or the opposition, except the expenditure of more money. They stalled the passage of this legislation and the movement of this very important amount of money into the hands of the farmers because they wanted to emphasize the point that they were all for more money being paid. The truth is, as I indicated when the March 15 motivations of the proposals were announced, that we must always keep under examination the income position of the prairie farmer and what his case for justice is with regard to a better return for his production. I indicated this would be a continuing review. I also indicated that, in the course of the previous fiscal year, we had put into the grain economy from the treasury a total of approximately $300 million as a result of a recognition and understanding of that income position.
In the current year, amounts approaching that order will be expended again, including the $100 million. The immediate cash position led to the conclusion that we should increase treasury payments by $101.5 million through the package of bills I have mentioned, an increase of $101 million in two years. With that, we must still keep the position under review. What does no one any good is the attempt to frighten people about where we are going. Our emphasis on market development, on attempts to improve the total income of prairie farmers through the better selling of their products is one for which I make no apology. I believe this is the right approach. No matter what kind of fiddling with treasury money might be suggested, a far larger proportion of the income of farmers on the prairies will always come from the sale of their products.
It is essential that we continue to pursue all opportunities of market development, that we continue to experience the kind of year we are experiencing now in terms of volume, though hopefully better years in terms of price. Meanwhile, over-all productivity continues to increase. Farmers have done a tremendous job in coping with rising costs by becoming increasingly productive. Particularly in the prairie regions they deserve an immense tribute.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I interrupt the minister to tell him his time has expired.


An hon. Member:: Go ahead.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member may continue, of course, if there is unanimous consent. Is there such unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Otto Emil Lang: I thank the House for its indulgence. I shall conclude by making only a few additional remarks. The position of the industry must, then, continue to be examined in the light of productivity, in the light of markets which can be obtained and in the light of the improved position in which farmers would find themselves if we could continue to market increasing volumes and allow

June 30, 1971

producers to gain the advantage of applying the technology with which they are familiar.
Hon. members may not realize that in recent years farmers have withheld a great deal of the technology which is known to them; they have not applied fertilizer, for instance, to the extent which would be recommended even in terms of the price of the product, or as would be the case if the marketing of all the product were possible. They have not done so partly because of restrictions due to limited cash and partly because they recognized they would have been producing for storage-and often they knew they were already storing enough from their own economic point of view. This is why we are optimistic that given a concentrated effort to make production as sensitive as possible to market needs we can produce in relation to sales which can be foreseen, and that we can sell ever-increasing quantities.
But whatever we do with regard to improving markets there will always be high sales years and lower sales years and it seems appropriate, therefore, for us to deal with this problem now. What we must avoid, surely, is the spreading of unnecessary fear among farmers. The difficulties they already face in adjusting their operations to changing conditions are already real enough. Changes in technology have meant pressures for bigger farm areas. We must recognize this, and seek to assist those farmers who wish to adapt to their situation. Farmers who wish to acquire additional land should be helped in obtaining it. Our adjustment programs of assistance must also be of help to those who would like to retire from farming. This, again, is part of our current program, a program of expenditure which is likely to be far more productive than putting out money without direct results being achieved.
Much of this effort is made possible through revenues raised in accordance with the budget proposals and through the rearrangement of taxation under our system. I say again that for many farmers in difficulty the improvement in the exemptions will do a tremendous amount year after year to ease the burden they have been carrying as part of the general taxpaying public, and it is therefore a change which I welcome particularly.


William Arnold Peters: Would the hon. minister permit a question?


Thomas Miller Bell: I do not wish to be unfair, but we have a full list of speakers. I have been going behind the curtain asking everyone to shorten their speeches in the hope that we can accommodate members from both sides who wish to take part in the debate. So, I believe we should be careful before granting extra time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The minister was, of course, given an extension of time by unanimous consent. X see the hon. member for Temiskaming indicates that he is in accord with what the hon. member has just said.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I believe our country is approaching a number of crossroads in its
The Budget-Mr. Ritchie
history, such as constitutional amendments, future relations with the United Kingdom if that country should enter the Common Market and the role of the public sector in our economy. All these are important subjects for consideration by Canadians. The latter has been the object of the government's budget now before us for consideration.	'
Before discussing certain specific aspects of the budget I think it might be wise to consider the purposes of a budget. I submit a budget has three basic purposes: first, to define the needs of the government; second, to define the relations between the public and the private sector and, third, to act as an instrument for the redistribution of wealth. On this point it is interesting to note the view of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) as recorded at page 6893 of Hansard. He stated:
A tax system must be sensitive to the economic and social needs of this country. It must not stand in the way of steady and continuous growth and economic prosperity. In some cases it must do more-it must stimulate sectors of our economy which need incentive.
This is a fine idea, but let us turn to what is happening in our economy. The unpleasant reality is that our economy is stagnant. In the first quarter of this year real growth amounted to only six-tenths of one per cent; in the second quarter it was a little better. If there is to be a reasonable growth rate this year the economy will have to perform at levels in the third and fourth quarters which will border on the miraculous, and the present government, even encouraged by the optimism of the Minister of Finance, has yet to achieve miracles. At the beginning of May there were well in excess of 800,000 claimants on the rolls of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. This figure was an increase of nearly 20 per cent over the same period in the preceding year. Which of our industries is healthy? The agricultural industry has had a disastrous year, our chemical industry and our pulp and paper industry fared even worse. The textile industry is in difficult straits, our electronics industry is not faring a great deal better, and more recently an ominous uncertainty has been settling around the automotive pact with the United States, one of the few bright spots in an otherwise depressed and depressing economy.
noon)
The level of the Canadian dollar is still a matter of very great concern to exports. It was unpegged by the government in May, 1970 and allowed to swell to a level of parity with the United States dollar. The consequences were almost ruinous for many Canadian exporters, particularly those in the pulp and paper industry. The budget itself offers remarkably little. The tax reforms to be debated later in the year are obscure and the economic effects consequently more unpredictable at the present time.
Removal of the surcharge of 1.5 per cent for this year gives the only real tax relief in a business way. The removal of the sales tax on margarine only makes fair the competition between two similar products, and the removal of the tax on anti-pollution equipment and the

June 30, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Ritchie
duty on heavy fuel oils only makes forced expenditures less costly. The tax exemptions at the lower income level are welcome but they represent only $130 million and will not provide much additional individual spending power. What the Minister of Finance has done is to stand pat on his December budget and wait for the proposed tax reforms to stimulate the economy, but they will not be felt before next year.
The question of foreign ownership is one which the government ought to have dealt with as an integral part of its budget. Our need for more industry and our heavy dependence on foreign capital to finance it are surely not matters of which the Minister of Finance is unaware. I suggest to him with all respect that this issue is of the greatest urgency and that he must persuade the government to make known its policy concerning foreign investments and investors in the immediate future. Can we reasonably expect foreign capital to be invested in Canada when those responsible for its placement never know at what moment the government may drastically change the ground rules for investors from abroad?
The present administration has the embarrassing distinction of having inflicted on this country high unemployment, inflation and a low growth rate. Belatedly and reluctantly recognizing the fact that our economy requires stimulation, the Minister of Finance has proposed a number of feeble measures which he and his advisers assure us will accomplish this.
Removal of the surtax as a stimulant to the economy is a measure both too little and too late and leads me to complete agreement with the observation in the lead editorial on the budget in the Montreal Star of June 19, which said this:
Mr. Benson's elimination of the surtax at this stage underlines the fact that he should have done it nine months ago. If the move is justified now, when things are supposed to be booming, it was even more justified last fall when they were not.
Secondly, and as an act which has been overdue for a long time for several million Canadians, the basic exemption rates were raised to a higher level. It is a strange concept of reform for a government to take pride or satisfaction from finally agreeing to cease taxing people who should have been removed from the tax rolls many years ago.
Thirdly, the Minister of Finance proposes to allow families to deduct $500 per year up to a maximum of $2,000 for any one family for child care expenses by working mothers. There is also provision for an employment expenses exemption, without the necessity of providing receipts of up to $150 yearly. There are some other minor concessions to taxpayers, such as the provision for claiming moving expenses against taxable income, and the removal of gift taxes and estate taxes.
If I were asked to characterize this budget, I would say it is a left-right one; that is, what the government proposes to give away with its right hand, it takes back with its left hand. I think a few examples will illustrate clearly what I mean.
The government proposes to allow employees to deduct from their taxable income premium payments into the unemployment insurance fund. This concession, however, will be many times offset by the fact that benefit payments under the fund will become fully taxable as income if this provision in the budget becomes law. Thus despite the minister's claim that low income earners will be better off under his so-called tax reform legislation, the truth of the matter is that the vast majority of unemployment insurance claimants are in the low income group and they will pay more-I repeat, more

in taxes under the proposed new scheme than under the present system.
Allow me to give the House a specific example, Mr. Speaker. Let us take the case of a married man with no children whose present income is $3,500, of which $2,100 is tax exempt under current legislation. Let us assume that in the course of the year he also receives $1,000 in unemployment insurance benefits which brings his total income to $4,500. His tax at present rates would be $230.70 combined federal and provincial tax.
Now, let us see what happens to this same low wage earner under the proposed new measures. His actual gross income rises to $4,500 since unemployment insurance benefits become classed as income, although the premiums, which would amount to about $50, become deductible. His total tax payable would be $315, about $85 more than at present. If you think that $1,000 unemployment insurance benefit is too much, one has only to look at what the present rates bring in unemployment insurance benefits, which average out at somewhere in the neighbourhood of $500 to $600 a year.
Further on the subject of personal income tax, in a release made by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association today there appears the following observation:
In the "Summary of 1971 Tax Reform Legislation" the comparison of proposed changes in personal income tax for 1972 with existing rates shows tax reductions for all taxpayers except middle income taxpayers with no dependants and for one other small group.
However, according to the present Income Tax Act, there would be no 3 per cent surtax for 1972. If this surtax is omitted from the comparison, then the proposed tax reform does not provide reductions in personal income tax for any middle income group except married taxpayers aged 65 to 69.
This means, in effect, that a portion, and in some cases a very substantial portion, of the "temporary" surtax has been included in the reformed income tax rates so that it has become a permanent part of the tax structure.
The incorporation of capital gains as income, even at half rates, means that those in the $10,000 to $20,000 tax bracket are the people who will provide the largest bulk of capital gains, as the parliamentary committee on finance found. They will still pay slightly more taxes than they do at present rates. Evidence produced before the finance committee indicated that taxpayers in the $12,000 tax bracket, as I recall, made an average of $300 in capital gains a year.
The high wage and salary increases for this last decade have meant that vast new sums of money were collected

June 30, 1971

through the income tax and its progressive rate structure. This, in turn, stimulated the federal government to embark upon more expansive social welfare schemes without proper delineation of authority between the provinces and the federal authority. Without proper safeguards as to controls and limitation of spending, as the Victoria conference indicated, both the federal government and the provinces were forced into awkward and expensive programs which in turn promoted wilful and uncontrolled spending the consequences of which we are only now starting to assess.
Turning now to the effect of the budget on agriculture, especially on the western grain industry, there is nothing, unfortunately, in the budget for this very depressed industry. The announcement of the Wheat Board of a final payment of 7.2 cents a bushel on No. 1 Northern reveals a total payment for the year of 157.2 cents a bushel basis the Lakehead, the lowest prices the farmers have received in 16 years. But there is no comparison between the value of today's dollar and that of the 1953-54, and no comparison with farm costs then and now.
The DBS figures show farm income has been especially hard hit. In 1969, in Manitoba it was $117.1 million; in 1970 it was $78.6 million which is a decline of one third in one year. In Saskatchewan, the drop was even greater; $402.9 million in 1969 and $202.7 million in 1970, a drop of 50 per cent. Alberta faired a little better, showing a loss of 20 per cent. For the three prairie provinces as a whole, farm net income declined from $803 million to $507 million in 1970, a decline of 37 per cent. There has been a drop of 24 per cent in the farm income all over Canada, but when the Prairies have been excluded, we find there has only been a 10 per cent decline. But to have a 33 per cent drop in Manitoba and a 50 per cent drop in Saskatchewan is nothing short of a calamity. This has been a very great disaster, indeed. The minister figured that this year we will have record sales of grain. Unfortunately, we will also be faced with record low prices, except perhaps in connection with rapeseed.
Further, when it is considered that grain receipts in the Wheat Board designated areas of 1966-67 amount to $1,353 million and in 1967-68 amounted to $1,213 million, whereas in 1968-69 they amounted to only $860 million, in 1969-70 to $855 million, with the projected one billion dollars for the 1970-71 crop year, it is obvious that the agricultural community is in a very bad way. When it is considered that the proposed Grain Stabilization Program will be phasing out approximately a $60 million commitment by the federal government for grain storage payment, which was not included in previous income, and replacing it with a deductible 2 per cent levy on the farmers gross income at the present time, then it is not to be wondered that the Stabilization Program finds little acceptance with the western farmer. The incorporation of a $100 million payout for this year with the controversial grain stabilization has not worked to the government's advantage, as indicated by the recent Saskatchewan election. Had the government followed the advice from this
The Budget-Mr. Ritchie
side of the House long ago and separated the two programs, it would have been much better.
The government is putting only approximately $40 million into the grain stabilization program at this time. With a formula based on the previous crop year, the five year average of grain receipts will be the lowest it has been for a decade, and it will be most unlikely that there will be any substantial payout by the federal government until at least 1975 unless there is a disastrous drop in farm income. The grain stabilization program will hold out little hope for the farmer for four or five years. This course of action is really an insult to the western grain industry, and an indication that the government does not regard the western grain industry as being worthy of any great consideration.
I should like to point out that the sales of feed grain are not all that rosy for the coming year, as has been indicated, unless there should be a blight of the United States corn crop. Furthermore there are indications that we will not be selling to our traditional markets due to the entry of the United Kingdom into the European Common Market and the setting up of a schedule of levies. Last year, the Japanese bought 3 million bushels of wheat from us, whereas they bought 100 million bushels from the United States which has an inferior product. The low grain volume, and record difficulties of the western grain industry, can be traced to the disastrous crop year 1968-69 when extremely little wheat and feed grain was moved into the markets of the world and when we exported a little over 150 million bushels. This indicates that selling is important and that a continued and strong effort in the sales field is most important for the western grain industry.
I would turn now to the long range budget proposals and the proposed tax changes for that great body of Canadians, the unincorporated business, which includes the vast majority of farmers. There is nothing here that gives the farmer any hope for the future. Indeed, it seems to be an indication that the government intends to relegate the farmers lower in the scale as individuals. It is my opinion that in our vast spaces and scattered populations the unincorporated business and farmers have made a very great and significant contribution to our economy, and I cannot see that this budget gives any encouragement to them. These people are extremely necessary to our far-flung economy. They are necessary for the drive in opening up new areas. Small communities need the acumen of individual businessmen because these people are often the main instigators of local industry.
The introduction of a capital gains tax will add a significant tax burden on them. It will lessen the chance of accumulating capital out of their present income that is so necessary for their continued growth and to make any individual small businesses viable. Much has been made of the proposed continuation of the rate of corporation taxes for small incorporated business, but it has still been raised by 5 per cent, that is from 20 per cent to 25 per cent. Thus even the taxable income has been

June 30, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Ritchie
increased by $35,000 to $50,000. The restrictions on the sale of small business to foreign owners, along with other features, cloud the stimulating effect that this tax structure would have on small business. Not all is known of the workings of this tax and therefore I would reserve judgment as to its potential value to small business.
The proposed tax changes deal two very severe blows to the agriculture industry. The institution of capital gains with the deemed realization at death will have the same effect as the estate tax, and I am sure that the farmer will be worse off even with the estate tax removed than he was previously. It will still be a severe obstacle to the easy transfer of farms from one generation to another.
The second serious feature is the application of the capital gains tax on farm machinery. The changeover from straight line depreciation to the decreasing balance of depreciation means a substantial increase in income on which a farmer will have to pay taxes. To give an example, the Massey Ferguson 410 self-compelled combine bought in 1964 sold for about $11,000. This same machine now sells at around $14,000. Such a combine purchased in 1964 would now be fully depreciated, but in a trade would still bring about $7,000 and its price in the used market would be only slightly below. Because this $7,000 was treated as a capital gain, it promoted farm machinery sales, provided a high technological level for the farmer and an efficient industry.
Under the proposed tax changes, the farmer will be deemed to have made an income of $7,000. This tax change will almost certainly wipe out any advantage of the suggestions of the Barber Commission. It will depress the farm machinery market and will decrease the ability of farmers, particularly in the grains industry with the high machinery capitalization, to produce efficiently and meet world competition.
I wish to say a few words about the late lamented Victoria conference. To anyone who studied the format of the constitutional conference in Victoria, it must have seemed remarkable that anyone expected that success would come out of the constitutional conference. The fact that Quebec has now rejected the proposed formula on the basis that the boundaries of jurisdictional power were not clearly defined is only the culmination of a long series of events. In fact, this points out the main problems of Canadian unity and Canadian Confederation. The British North America Act largely provided that health, welfare and education were provincial responsibilities. With the advent of a strong social conscientiousness, combined with the overwhelming taxing power available to the federal government, the federal authority established in these fields certain payment to individuals in all Canada, and to the provinces, in shared cost programs.
So long as these payments to individuals remained equal to all Canadians, perhaps there was little strain on confederation. But with the creation of the shared-cost programs, and particularly so when by federal initiative programs were forced on the provinces for which they
were not ready and which they found difficult to carry out and finance, the strains on confederation have developed and become more severe. I am on the side of the provinces in this matter, and I feel that they must legislate as to the priorities in the field of social obligations to their citizens.
I am sure that the federal government has no divine right to dictate to a province on what should be the level of old age pension, family allowance and so on that its citizens must have. Rather, it is the duty of the provinces to ascertain this, and for the federal government to make available to the provinces funds to carry this out by an agreed formula and equalization payments which will be fair to all parts of Canada. This may create some disparities in various levels of care within the provinces that certain programs give, but I do believe that it will provide a better basis for confederation than the present situation or the one that was envisaged in the Victoria charter.
Also, I have no doubt of the right of the French Canadian community to survive as a distinct society, and perhaps the doubt that they will survive was one of the reasons Quebec did not agree to the Victoria charter. No matter what political party is in power in Quebec, the aim must be the same: the survival of the French Canadian entity. Certainly, I do not believe that the French Canadian society can be sustained in geographical pockets from coast to coast by federal laws and policies that are often impractical. An acceptance of the Victoria charter would indicate that the country would have to develop along strongly centralist and uniform lines in areas of social and cultural policy. Should these have been adopted, the present unbearable tensions would have increased.
Canada needs a federal and more flexible structure than has yet been proposed. The intense obstinacy with which the federal authority has attempted to impose its will on the provinces in the matter of social welfare will have to be loosened before a workable Canadian constitutional amendment can be found.


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Montreal-Bourassa: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take part briefly in this budget debate.
I listened with attention to the speeches of the various opposition members. That leads me to say that most of them have neither read nor listened to the speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson).
Mr. Speaker, I shall try to link the various points dealt with in his financial statement with the situation now prevailing. First of all, as concerns participation, never has any bill on tax reform been the subject of such publicity. Since 1963, all groups and individuals wishing to put forward their views availed themselves of the opportunity on numerous occasions.
The Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs acquainted itself with the briefs, letters and representations it received. That committee did a very

June 30, 1971

good job under the able direction of the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Clermont).
While participating in the debate, the hon. member for Gatineau quoted the exact number of briefs and letters submitted to the committee. Indeed, I shall not recapitulate those figures.
The Minister of Finance, besides, indicated that he personally received over 20,000 letters, after introducing the white paper on tax reform. I am sure that all hon. members have also received perhaps not thousands of letters but certainly hundreds of them on the matter.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, I have personally participated in various study groups, visited social clubs and attended public meetings in which individuals could participate and voice their point of view on the tax reform; the new bill introduced by the minister on June 18 last is the culmination of such work. The participation of the public at large is therefore an obvious fact.
What the opposition seems to dislike most is the special attention given to the representations and the many changes which followed. The minister took great care to study all suggestions and has even gone farther than recommended by the committee report.
I would like to emphasize two points in the budget speech which deserve special attention.
First, the minister was certainly concerned about the well-being of the people, of the individual and mainly of the low income people. I will stress a few points which illustrate how concerned the minister was to improve the plight of those most in need.
First, effective July 1, the elimination of the 3 per cent surtax on personal and corporate incomes as well as the exemption of the guaranteed income supplement, retroactive to January 1, 1971.
Next, all taxpayers with taxable income under $500 will be exempted as of July 1, 1971. The gift and state tax will be abolished on December 31, 1971.
Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of reading the whole list of advantages contained in the budget but I did want to point out a few. Corporations, investment companies and businessmen were also worried about the tax reform.
In his speech the minister certainly clarified the situation. As I said, the 3 per cent surtax is also eliminated for corporations. Moreover the 12 per cent sales tax on margarine is repealed and so is the 15 per cent excise tax on television, radio and hi-fi sets, their components and other electronic equipment.
The reduction of duties on petrochemical raw materials will certainly spur this industry.
The immediate removal of the 12 per cent sales tax on anti-pollution equipment is also included in this reform.
Removing tariffs on some bush operation equipment should help out this industry rapidly.
The Budget-Mr. Trudel
I do not propose to ponder at any length on all the details of the many tax reform proposals which illustrate the basic principles applied by the minister to help the taxpayers and enable private enterprise to create an ever-increasing number of jobs for the benefit of a labour force which is constantly improving on its qualifications. Several of my colleagues have cared to do it and I will merely add to their comments.
However, let me emphasize the significant facts which indicate that our standard of living in Canada is already holding an enviable place. Indeed, we rank third in this respect among all the countries of the world, right next to the United States and Sweden. Canada is the ninth power in the world and we belong to the Group of Ten.
The efforts of our country, with the United Nations, toward peace in the world certainly constitute an enviable record. While 100 countries have increased their military expenditures, Canada ranks seventh amongst those that have decreased theirs. Although sparsely populated, Canada produces 6 per cent of all goods.
Mr. Speaker, the volume of personal assets has increased ceaselessly since 1960. Allow me to give a few examples to show how much better off our people are. The production of air conditioners has grown from 12 to 37 per cent; automatic dryers, from 17 to 40 per cent; colour television sets, from 6.8 to 37 per cent. I could give many more but I feel those should be sufficient to prove my point.
For 15 years, the Canadian work force has had the most rapid increase in the industrial world-3 million since 1955-which means that our economy has created
200,000	new jobs during that period.
During the same time, personal earnings increased by 50 per cent. There are now 8 million workers in Canada. These people live on a much higher standard than they did twenty years ago. In fact, they live better than 90 per cent of the world's working population. It must also be noted that the Canadian population has benefited from the application of new welfare measures, which were financed from the consolidated revenue fund and are unequalled anywhere. May I just mention a few of them: universal pension at the age of 65, hospital insurance, medicare, unemployment insurance and welfare allowances.
Mr. Speaker, one should certainly not fail to mention the sizeable investments, both public and private, in the fields of education, health, and housing.
In spite of all these improvements, the hon. Minister of Finance has succeeded in the budget speech and the tax reform in suggesting numerous changes to further improve the situation.
To sum up the nature of these changes, I take the liberty of detailing them briefly.
Important reductions are granted to low income taxpayers; the rate of taxation for corporations will be

June 30, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Broadbent
gradually lowered and the various industries will be treated more equally.
The tax system becomes more equitable through the capital gains tax.
More individuals and corporations are induced to save and invest. Canadians will have somewhat better control over their economy.
The public sector will no longer encroach on private enterprise.
Our fiscal system remains relatively simple, without the complexities resulting from the original proposals of the white paper.
It will be easier to harmonize federal and provincial fiscal structures.
Main fiscal loopholes will be eliminated.
I therefore congratulate the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker, and I intend to support adoption of the budget and the fiscal reform.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to get involved in this budget debate, at least up until last night, when I learned that the government, particularly the Postal Department, is embarking on what can only be described as a highly irresponsible hiring program in this period of our history. At a time when Canada is experiencing the highest level of unemployment amongst all the industrialized nations of the west, one would have hoped that if the government has not decided to change its monetary and fiscal policies in order to achieve full employment by that means, at least it would ibe implementing a policy aimed at creating as many jobs as possible, in as rational a way as possible. However, in the Postal Department, and specifically connected with the new assured mail program, the government is now concentrating, not on the provision of full-time jobs but on the hiring of part-time employees.
I would like to give you some statistics on this subject, Mr. Speaker, and suggest the implication of them for the workers involved, and also suggest that within a matter of days we could have another postal strike in Canada, a national postal strike, because postal workers from Halifax to Vancouver right now are involved in serious discussions about whether or not to have a national postal strike. What is the situation? In Toronto since the beginning of this year the Post Office has hired 61 full-time employees and 187 part-time workers. In that city in 1968 there were 3,000 full-time workers and only 800 parttime workers. At present in June, 1971, there are 2,700 full-time workers, a decrease of 300; and 1,200 part-time workers, an increase of 400.
In small centres across the country, for example the city of Kingston, the percentage of part-time employees has begun to exceed the 50 per cent level compared with full-time workers. In other words, within the Canadian Postal Service there is a deliberate plan to change completely the ratio of part-time workers to full-time employees. In the present negotiations taking place in the city of Montreal, the trade union representatives have been told that no full-time employees will be hired in the Montreal Post Office, and that it is planned to hire some 110 part-time workers. What is the reason for this? The Postmaster General's view is that the new assured mail program requires it.
The trucks which pick up mail at specially designated times arrive at the post office in unusually large numbers, and it is argued that this requires a concentration of workers for a few hours to clear that mail. As a result, the Post Office has been hiring part-time workers to work in back-to-back part-time shifts on reduced hours. In the city of Toronto, for example, one shift works from 10.30 a.m. to 3.30. Then, there is an hour and a half break, say a lunch break, and a completely different shift comes on from 5 p.m. for the next two, three or four hours. In other words, there is the potential in that period from 10.30 a.m. until just after 5 p.m. for one complete full-time shift of workers, but the Post Office has hired two shifts of part-time employees. Men and women are hired to work short hours, not full-time hours.
The point from the postal workers' point of view is that they have been willing, and have said so on many occasions, to show the government, the directors of the Post Office, how full-time employees could be doing this job. In other words, they are not talking about any kind of feather-bedding operation, of the unnecessary hiring of a number of workers. In fact, it is quite the contrary. Nor are they saying-and this is important-that we do not need an efficient mail system, that the assured mail program is a bad one. The facts are quite the contrary. They want an efficient postal service, just like everyone else in the country, but what they are saying is that when the government introduces a new scheme, some new procedure of work, especially at a time when it should be concerned with the question of full employment, every effort should be made to hire full-time people and not break up the work load into a series of part-time shifts.
e (12:40 p.m.)
This is their argument and it seems to be a very persuasive one. They have offered to show to the government how some 500 full-time employees could be hired in Canada. That would provide, (a) greater efficiency for the postal service of this country; greater service, that is, to the people of this country and, (b) jobs. This is obvious in view of the 500 more Canadians who are needed at the present time. So far, the government has been extremely reluctant to listen to their proposals, to say the least. In fact, the government has refused to give a commitment that they would abandon their program of hiring part time employees.
This seems to me to be completely reprehensible. One has to ask why the government is doing this. One does not normally assume that there is a malicious band of people on the other side of the House deliberately embark -
[Mr. Trudel.)
June 30, 1971	COMMONS DEBATES	7535
ing on projects to harm the people of this country. No one assumes that. What, then, is the reason? It is a typical one for this Liberal government, namely to save money in the short run wherever it can, especially if this saving can be done at the expense of the average worker and the poor people of this country.
It happens to be the case that part-time employees in the postal service, like part-time employees in most other occupations in Canada, have a salary and fringe benefit situation substantially inferior to that of full-time employees. For example, in the post office a part-time postal helper, a new category just brought in under the new scheme, will be paid $2.94 an hour. That is the category of worker now being hired in significant numbers by the postal service. If, instead, the government decided to hire more full time employees, they would have to be paid $3.69 an hour, something approaching a liveable wage in Canada.
Quite apart from the salary or wage position which gives the government a short-run economic advantage in terms of the individual employee when comparing the total number of part-time employees they are now hiring with the potential of substantially fewer full-time employees, I am not sure if in the short-run they are going to gain financially. But apart from the difference in wage rates which so interest the government, is the difference in fringe benefits. On the one hand they say, "We want to improve the postal service." Everyone agrees with that, including the postal workers' union. But they also say, "Let's cut down on the number of full-time jobs; let's shift our emphasis to part-time employees. If we do that we just may be able to save a little money". The answer to that, speaking from the point of view of workers involved in the postal service, is that it is a bad move. What is needed is to have the efficiency they are aiming for and to have these jobs done, when they can be, by full-time employees. That is what the union is pushing for and it seems to me to be a highly laudable objective.
The second point is that, whether directly concerned or involved in the trade unions or not, all Canadians should be interested in creating more jobs and primarily more full-time jobs. We do not want to provide opportunities for more moonlighting if the alternative is possible, namely, creating full time jobs. It seems to me that this is the decisive issue on the postal situation at the present time. Because of new and, hopefully, improved service being provided for the people of Canada, there was an opportunity to hire 500 Canadians on a full-time basis but the government has deliberately embarked on a contrary program. They have decided now to provide a few more jobs for people on a limited number of hours basis. It is too bad that there are all these people still looking for full-time employment.
I say this is highly irresponsible, Mr. Speaker, and is doing a disservice to the people of Canada, particularly to those men and women looking for jobs. Apart from that, in the days and weeks ahead it could lead to a major disruption in the postal service by the workers in
The Budget-Mr. Penner
that service. If that should come about, it should be noted that the major responsibility for it will not lie with the postal workers but with those responsible for the postal service, namely, this government.


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great respect to the suggestion of the whip of the official opposition, the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell) that we shorten our speeches in order to allow more members to participate in this budget debate on its final day. I am anxious to co-operate in this regard and plan to restrict my remarks accordingly.
The budget and tax reform package which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has placed before Parliament has been described as a massive achievement. One newspaper columnist said that there is an emphasis throughout on people, and another commentator described the budget and tax reform program as a very human document. The people of Canada and their elected representatives were well and truly consulted and, for once, we have tax measures and reforms which reflect well considered views of citizens across the nation. In restricting my remarks, there are only two items which I will refer to in my short contribution to this important debate. Both matters relate to key industries in my constituency, namely, the pulp and paper industry and the mining industry.
I will deal first with the pulp and paper industry. When we consider water pollution, the pulp and paper industry is, by and large, considered in Canada to be one of the major offenders. Many older mills in this country were established at a time when it was believed that we had an ample supply of fresh water for everyone, and for all uses, and there was little harm done by spewing effluent into a few lakes and streams. Of course, nuisance and aesthetic factors were involved, and in the vicinity of outlets, effluent discharges did inhibit fish life, but by and large it was considered by industrialists and communities alike that there was little harm done and no one should be concerned. After all, it was argued, we have within our boundaries almost 35 per cent of the world's total freshwater supply, while our population is below one per cent of the world's population. This, indeed, is a super-abundance of freshwater.
In recent years we have seen the emergence of a host of concerned people called environmentalists or ecologists, and collectively they have sometimes been referred to as the "Disaster Lobby". Nowadays, by means of radio, television and the printed word we are constantly pelted by the voices of doom. Recently, on the way to the airport, the driver of the taxi had the radio tuned in to one of those daytime talk shows where the participants take turns, complaining about how terrible everything is. As we pulled up at the terminal, the driver turned to me and said, "If things are all that bad, how come I feel so good?"

June 30, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Penner
The drumbeat of despair goes on, but I can state clearly that the pulp and paper industry in my constituency is deeply and seriously concerned about its pollution problems. Much has been done, new abatement programs are being effected, a great deal more needs to be accomplished and it will be achieved. What this industry asks for is a little more time, some consideration of the costs involved and a realization that there are limitations in the present state of our abatement technology. No one that I have ever met in the industry would dispute the fact that we need increasing concern for the quality of life and the protection of our life sustaining resources, air, land and water. All of us want to live in a world that provides healthy environmental conditions and abundant recreational opportunities.
Pollution is a many headed monster, but so much of the effort to deal with this problem consists of no more than pointing the accusing finger at one of these heads while ignoring what is being done by the others. It is a popular pastime to choose the pulp and paper industry and make it a prominent scapegoat. This is quite understandable, because here we have an industry which is well defined and visible and its operations are generally well known. Let us consider the record, however, and then judge whether other polluters have done as much to improve the situation where they are involved.
During the past decade or so when the pulp and paper industry has more than doubled its productive output, effluent discharges have been cut by 50 per cent per ton of paper. During the 1960's the pulp and paper industry spent over $100 million to combat pollution and, at this time, the industry in my region is committed to additional major outlays to reduce or eliminate the problem. At Fort Frances, Dryden, Thunder Bay, Red Rock, Terrace Bay and Marathon many millions of dollars have been allocated for waste water treatment facilities, effluent control and pollution abatement.
Almost all pollution abatement expenditures result in no increased productivity; nor do they produce a financial return. Indeed, in most cases they are carried on at the expense of capital investment and modernization, two factors necessary to ensure a continuing stable economy. Older mills and plants in this country are seriously questioning whether they can justify necessary capital expenditures and, like several older mills in the New England states, they may be forced to close down, with resultant job losses for the particular communities where these mills are located. The purists may cheer at such a prospect, but they would not dare do so in communities where mills closed. They would have to do so at a safe distance from the towns where the opportunity to earn a living would be destroyed.
In the months prior to the presentation of this budget, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) was made aware of the situation facing the pulp and paper industry and, in part, he responded positively. The tax rate for corporations will be reduced annually until in 1976 it will be 46 per cent, as compared to the present 50 per cent. In addition, the removal of the 12 per cent sales tax on all
anti-pollution equipment used in production will act as a spur to do more sooner. I am wondering, however, whether it may not be necessary for the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) to consider going one step further. Perhaps the time has now come to set up a revolving loan fund to help fight industrial pollution, or even to do as Sweden has done, that is offer older mills a grant of up to 50 per cent of costs for all expenditures earmarked exclusively for pollution clean-up programs. The Department of Regional Economic Expansion is spending millions to help establish new industries and expand existing ones. Can we not justify spending some public funds to help maintain the industries, communities and jobs we presently have, particularly since the pulp and paper industry is dependent on a natural resource which is renewable?
It does not seem a crime to me, Mr. Speaker, to approach this pollution problem in a rational way with phased programs. Many of our international competitors do not seem to have the same concern as we do and this of course further complicates the situation, because the cost factor becomes such a heavy burden for the Canadian industry. It was said recently that we could end up having the cleanest air and water in the world; but what good would that do if we had no jobs for our citizens?
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I would like to consider briefly the budget, tax reform and the mining industry. There are those who argue, and argue well, that resource industries are getting preferential treatment at the expense of other segments of the economy such as manufacturing and service industries which provide more employment opportunities for our labour force. I know that this thesis is attractive in some parts of Canada, but in northwestern Ontario it simply means that we must forget about resource development, let communities perish and force people to move to cities like Toronto, to live on the welfare schemes provided by that great city or other cities.
The tax incentives to the mining industry can be justified if we consider the risks involved, the cost of development and the expense of building up new infrastructures in the more remote areas. All countries where mineral resources are of any significance offer tax provisions comparable to those available in Canada as incentives to exploration and development.
Investment capital for mining is highly mobile and it is quite true to say that mining concerns would simply go elsewhere if Canada's tax laws got rough. Perhaps in 100 years or so when resources elsewhere are scarce, investment will return and our price could be higher. There is no assurance that such would be the case. There is no assurance that if the mining industry were to leave this country, it would revive and come back in the next century in an altered state and serve the national interest in a better way. There is no assurance that that would happen. Meanwhile, entire regions of this country will become depressed and depopulated if we do not offer some special considerations to this important industry. Such a policy of failing to offer incentives is, it seems to me, extremely ruthless and even savage and forgets

June 30, 1971

about the people who live and work in these parts of Canada. Mining growth in the last two decades has made an important contribution to regional development.
Many mines today are of a long term nature and they purchase machinery, operating supplies and services in significant quantities. The mining industry promotes the development of secondary industry by providing a domestic source of raw materials. If mining were restricted, it would certainly detract from the potential growth of other segments of the economy. Tax provisions available to the mining industry have proved most successful in promoting a satisfactory level of exploration and a remarkable rate of growth in one of Canada's most important industries. If these incentives had been removed it would have had serious consequences for the whole economy and the effect on northwestern Ontario would have been drastic.
We therefore commend the Minister of Finance for his realistic approach to the mining industry in which he has fairly considered people, the regions in which they live, as well as the industry itself.


Mr. J. Chester MacRae (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner) set an excellent example of brevity in his speech. I will try to do the same. I was deeply interested in his remarks on pollution because it is one of the great, overriding problems of our nation, as well as the overpopulation of our space ship, earth. Man will have to face, and conquer, these problems even in our time. I commend the hon. member for his excellent remarks in that regard.
I enter this budget debate briefly. I am following a great many speakers who for the most part have been perceptive, thoughtful and constructive. It is, of course, expected that those who support the government will be complimentary and those of us who sit in opposition will be critical. That is proper, because it is our job; it is what we should do. In political life, as Your Honour has learned in your long experience, one must always be an optimist. This is always the wisest course. It is never wise-in fact, it is often dangerous-to be a realist and almost fatal to be a pessimist. In my remarks I will try to take the middle road and be a realist as far as the budget is concerned and a few other remarks I would like to make.
It would be difficult to quarrel with the removal of the surtax. I will come to that matter later in my remarks. It would be difficult to quarrel with the raising of the exemptions which will take place in 1972. That is good. However, I am surprised that the government did not raise the exemption of the married rate to at least $3,000 a year. That would have been much wiser. Certainly, the exemption for working parents and for child care are excellent. This is long overdue. The fact that many very low income earners, those with less than $500 of taxable income, will be deleted from the tax rolls is a step in the right direction. Also, we cannot quarrel with having exemption on estate taxes.
The Budget-Mr. MacRae
There is one tax that should very definitely have been removed. That is the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials. For many years the party of which I am a member has pressed for this, in fact ever since its imposition. Later in my remarks I would like to comment on the address by the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) and many others. I am sure that many in the government ranks would like to have seen this tax removed; it would have spurred our house construction industry. One of the basic principles to which we adhere is that every Canadian citizen should be able to afford decent shelter. This tax is a factor in preventing our arriving at this goal.
The comments in the press with regard to the budget debate have been interesting. I again refer to the hon. member who preceded me. In his address he quoted a number of favourable editorials, commentators, and so on. I do not blame him for doing that; in fact, I commend him. I would like to quote from an editorial which appeared in an excellent newspaper in the city of Fredericton where I live, the Daily Gleaner. This is a report published a day or two following the budget presentation. Although it is a critical article, I feel that it is perceptive and thoughtful. Much, if not all of the criticism is constructive and justified. The editorial begins by quoting the words of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) when he brought down his budget:
"This is an important and historic occasion,"
The editorial continues:
But at the end of his 16,000 words-
I did not count them but evidently somebody did.
-most Canadians could be pardoned for wondering if his opening statement were' not as exaggerated as his tax benefits.
For what he presented was a not-now budget. There is no immediate relief of a significant nature. A few minor tax and excise changes take effect at once, but nothing to bear out his claim of a momentous event.
On July 1, the 3 per cent surcharge on personal and corporate income tax will be removed.
I did not realize the following which is brought out in this editorial:
If he is a bachelor earning $5,000 a year, he will get an extra 23 cents in his weekly pay cheque.
The editorial then deals with the matter of salaries of Members of Parliament, a rather touchy subject to some, as follows:
There had been no exemption increases since 1963. Then, when they did come, there had to be huge adjustments to bring them into line. Exemption boosts should be spread out over the years and based on the cost of living and the upward spiral of inflation.
I know it is not completely proper to comment upon a vote in this House of Commons. We learn this soon after we come to the House, and I have been here 14 years. But I hope that the government can find some way of adjusting the increment of Members of Parliament. If the best people are to come here, we must increase the increment of members. We cannot expect young men to leave their families, homes and professions to come here

June 30, 1971
The Budget-Mr. MacRae
and be paid a salary less than that of a labourer in the city of Toronto. The editorial continues:
His not-now budget is also an inflationary budget. Heavy government spending is still there. It should have been slashed heavily, along with taxes. Deficit financinig is still there. Government expenses are still soaring.
It is an unfortunate fact of life that we are in a period of high unemployment and high inflation. I will deal with these matters later. It disturbs me that every year the cost of government continues. Because my political philosophy is right-wing Conservatism, I believe that private enterprise, private businessmen like the hon. member from Calgary and others, can do things better than the government. I have believed this all my life. Given a fair and square chance, private enterprise can do its job better than government. It disturbs me to see the government taking over more and more of our life from the cradle to the grave and entering more and more into our economy. The article continues:
Mr. Benson says he wants to help small business. Small corporations now pay a 21 per cent tax on the first $35,000 and then 50 per cent on the balance.
This means that their tax goes up 4 per cent right away and with no reduction. But the tax paid by large corporations goes down one per cent a year tor the next four years. He is helping big business by actually raising the tax on small businesses.
Canada is to have a capital gains tax. It was expected because we are one of the last countries in the western world to hold out. It is perhaps the fairest levy in Mr. Benson's budget with only one half of a capital gain taxable. It is a far cry from the proposal in his white paper on tax reform which would have made homes subject to a capital gains tax. Only a coast to coast outcry prevented this measure from going through.
Mr. Benson is receiving both praise and criticism for his budget. We believe that in the days ahead when all of its aspects are digested, the praise will fade considerably.
I believe that, too. Some good addresses have been delivered in the course of this debate. I was especially interested in the speech made by the hon. member for Trinity. Here is a businessman of wide experience, a former cabinet minister and contender for the leadership of his party, making one of the most scathing indictments of a government I have ever heard in the House of Commons. And it came from a member sitting on the government side. What did he say? I should like to recall some of his words. He said government economic policy was tearing this country apart. He said, further:
In my whole life I have not seen so much bickering, dissatisfaction and frustration as is evident everywhere except among the naive, the well-fed and the complacent.
That is a damning indictment. I mentioned earlier that we face the twin spectres of inflation and unemployment. Not long ago I saw a cartoon in one of our great daily newspapers. It depicted two unemployed men sitting on a park bench looking hungry and shabby. One said to the other, "Don't you feel an awful lot better now that you know that you have been seasonally adjusted." Cartoonists can be very cutting.
I finished school just in time to meet the great depression head on. The ten years between 1930 and 1940 were a soul-searing experience. We only began to get out of the depression in 1940. The old cliche, "Tory times are
hard times", is one of the most unfair statements ever made. The whole of the western world was in a depressed state during those years. Be that as it may, it was a devastating experience for all who went through it.
Unemployment must be a devastating experience today for the half million men and women who want to work and cannot. It must be devastating for the young people who have finished school with baccalaureate degrees, masters' degrees and doctorates but nevertheless are unable to find employment. For many years as a teacher, I believed that education was the answer to everything. If we could only get our youth into universities, if we could only get them through school, if we could only get them to continue their education, everything would be all right. The experience of the past few years has proved that this philosophy is not the answer.
We have spent billions of dollars on education and we are still spending vast sums of money on it. But think of the terrible riots in our universities! Columbia is one example-one of the finest universities in the world. It weis torn asunder a few years ago. So the plight of the unemployed-some of whom are educated, others of whom are not-must always be before us. Their experience must be soul-searing. Unfortunately, it seems to me the budget does nothing for them. It is not expansionary; it is not designed to bring about full employment. We must gear our economic policies in such a way that more can be done for these people.
I should like to speak about inflation for a few moments. The effects of inflation fall most heavily on those with fixed incomes-pensioners, recipients of war veterans allowance, those receiving old age assistance and those who are too proud in some cases to accept any assistance at all. Maybe they had a small income from which they were able to make provision before they retired from their businesses or other occupations-a few thousand dollars set aside. They thought they were all right. Undoubtedly, other hon. members have received letters similar to those I have received. A man has put aside $200 a month in the course of his working life, feeling his savings would be sufficient. But, of course, they are not. Inflation and unemployment are the great economic spectres facing us at the present time. I wish the government well in all its endeavours to combat them.
I should like to end with two quotations. One is from Dr. Larkin Kerwin, vice-rector of Laval University. He said this a short time ago in an address at St. Francis Xavier University in the Maritimes:
Just as open-circuit engineering had as its objective the supplying of material goods to people, without any built-in concern for what happens to them (with consequent pollution), so much social legislation has had as its object the satisfying of human desires and requirements without any thought of what would happen afterward, and we now have a resultant social pollution.
These are strong words, but I believe they are realistic. That is what I said I would try to be. Dr. Kerwin went on the say, and this is the important part:
I refer to the fact that, as a result of our reasonable desire to increase and safeguard human freedom and dignity, Canada

June 30, 1971

has in the past 20 years become a much more comfortable place for the murderer, the thief, the abortionist, the parasite, the lazy, the drug-pusher, the improvident. It has become a much more difficult place for the thrifty, the energetic, the pious, the provident.
These are telling words. Finally, I should like to put on record a tew lines which are, in my opinion, among the best ever been written by the greatest of the presidents of the United States. People should keep this quotation on their desks because I believe it expresses the philosophy of every man in public life in the free and democratic system under which we live.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.
My final quotation is from one of the greatest addresses ever written. It happens to express my philosophy and I believe in it firmly. These are Abraham Lincoln's words:
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: June 30, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Paproski
going along with CNR and the federal government turns out, as I say, to be a very poor response to the needs of these people. As we pointed out several times when the federal government was asked to grant to the CPR the same rights in regard to its pension fund debt as were granted to the CNR, this grant was made on the assumption that the CPR would do the same as the CNR did for its employees. But it has failed to do so. I should like to enlarge on this matter, Mr. Speaker, but I must keep my promise to make my remarks brief. I just want to say that I think this is mean and cruel treatment by the CPR of its employees. And when you add to it the consideration that no employee who retired earlier than 1956 receives any increase in pension at all, as well as the fact that widows whose deceased husbands retired prior to that cut-off date will also receive no increase, I say the action of the CPR is wrong and grossly unfair.
I welcome the representations that the Minister of Transport has made to the CPR. I think that these representations have had some effect. They certainly had an effect on the CPR in regard to the reinstatement of pass privileges. I trust that the minister will work very hard this summer on this piece of unfinished business so that these retired employees of the Canadian Pacific Railway or their widows will get the justice that is coming to them.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to be too critical of the budget, but I think it is important to undertake a serious analysis of the budget from the viewpoint of what it is and what it is not. First of all, it cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called tax reform. If anyone can show me any new, far-reaching tax policy beyond so-called electoral expediency, then I will agree that there is tax reform. But in fact there is no such policy. What we have is the same old lack of policy served up in a new dress. As far as tax reform is concerned, this budget is spinach and in effect represents a rejection by the government of its own fiscal policies of the past three years.
This budget is an admission that the government made the wrong choice in deciding to sacrifice unemployment in order to beat inflation. It is an admission that the government failed on both counts. It did not beat inflation and it certainly did not provide employment. It is an admission of the costly fiasco of overtaxation, overspending and underplanning.
It is a fact that large numbers of people will pay less tax. We have been demanding this for three years. The pensioner and the poor will be taken off the tax rolls, and this has also been part of our policy for three years. The 3 per cent surtax is being taken off-and we voted against it when it was put on. In every way, no matter how you look at it the budget is an admission that the opposition has been right and the government wrong.
If there is any reform in this budget it is reform of the government's untenable taxing policies. Fortunately, the government was forced to scrap its own white paper which would have wiped out middle-income Canadians and created a nationwide proletariat. The raising of personal exemptions is necessary and is a move that the government borrowed from opposition policy.

With those few changes, Mr. Speaker, this remains a budget placing the government in a position to face a possible election should one be forced upon it by the failure of the province of Quebec to accept the constitutional charter. What I am perturbed about is that there is so little here to spur and stimulate development in this nation. There is nothing here for the mining companies; in fact, life will be made more difficult for mining exploration under this budget. There is nothing for primary producers, oil producers, the people who make this country prosperous.
I have gone through the budget with a fine-tooth comb and have failed to find anything for the farmer or the fisherman. It is certainly a bureaucrat's budget, a budget designed to make life easier for the tax collector but not much help to anyone else. The few improvements we have in the budget were put there, not as a result of reform philosophy but by the cold winds of defeat blowing on the government's spinal column.
Mr. Speaker, the Opportunities for Youth program which has added substantially to every taxpayer's bill is only one more example of the administrative incapacity of the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier). What can one say about a minister whose department turns down responsible projects and grants $15,000 to a radical newspaper which has been before the courts on obscenity charges? Before that we had the Company of Young Canadians and their revolutionary activities in Montreal. I ask the Secretary of State whether it is his policy to subsidize radical activities.
Mr. Speaker, the kind of maladministration we have seen in the Company of Young Canadians and Opportunities for Youth programs has added to the tax bill of every Canadian, and the best way of cutting down on useless expenditures by this government would be to appoint the present Secretary of State to a position outside the government of this nation. The Opportunities for Youth program is the responsibility of the Secretary of State. Let us see what a Liberal member of the government has to say about "tzarovich". A tzarovich is the son of a tzar. Let us see what he has to say as reported in this morning's Gazette:
The Secretary of State has got to go. The fiasco of the Opportunities for Youth program is the crowning touch to a series of unexplainable activities for which he has had the over-all responsibility.
What has the Secretary of State done to get rid of undesirables? Not only do they remain in various posts throughout his jurisdiction, but their number seems to increase. Oh, if one or two slipped into the mainstream unnoticed it could be termed a coincidence. But from all reports there would appear to be a purposeful design aimed at bringing in odd-balls, kooks, radicals and even communists.
These comments are from a member of the minister's own party. The Opportunities for Youth program has been surrounded by uncertainty, confusion and doubledealing. It has been a scandal so far as Canadians are concerned. In contemplating this program we are faced with two alternatives, either the minister is the world's
June 30, 1971

worst administrator or he is surrounded by incompetents. Here we have a program which turns down responsible programs put forward by responsible Canadians in the city of Edmonton and grants money to marijuana growers in British Columbia. I want to make clear that I have nothing against British Columbia. Several groups have approached me in my city of Edmonton. On the strength of the minister's assurances they went ahead, and even took out bank loans to finance employment for young people. But in no way could they get the required approval from Ottawa. When I questioned the minister in the House on behalf of these well-intentioned Edmonton leaders, I was greeted with evasive action.
More than $50 million have been thrown away on this program which should be called "Opportunities for Waste." Government extravagance in the Opportunities for Youth program and the Company of Young Canadians alone will be enough to send every taxpayer on a world cruise on the Bonaventure. What we have here is a last-ditch attempt by the government to reform its policies by adopting opposition policies and building them into the budget. As far as it goes, we welcome this-but it just does not go far enough.
There should be incentives for exploration on a far larger scale. There should be incentives in the form of tax remissions for primary producers in the oil and natural gas fields, and elimination of the 11 per cent construction tax, which we have been calling for for five years and which the government will eventually be forced to adopt if they hope to provide employment for all those Canadians prepared and eager to work. They face the spectre of defeat on the unemployment issue, because Canadians will not forget who created unemployment. They face the spectre of defeat on the constitutional question because Canadians will not forget who kept the constitutional squabble going for three sterile years. They face defeat on high taxes, because Canadians will not forget who created the worst record of spending, extravagance and waste in government history. This was exemplified in the record of the Bonaventure scandal, in money wasted on the Company of Young Canadians and in a hundred other ways including the Opportunities for Youth program.
Opportunities for Youth is a typical example of maladministration at the government level. Enormous amounts of money have been thrown away on programs that cannot be justified in a madhouse run by its own inmates. In that respect the budget is a last-gasp effort by the government, a kind of last minute act of contrition. I do not think many Canadians will be fooled by it. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees), a veteran parliamentarian and former minister, sees it as an election budget. In that respect he is probably not far wrong. But I submit, Mr. Speaker, it is too late for the government to try to bribe Canadians by giving them back a little of their own money. Regardless of the minor goodies in the budget, the government will have to stand or fall on its economic record and up to this point it is a very poor one indeed.
The Budget-Mr. Beaudoin


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to tell the House what the majority of my constituents think of the budget put forward by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson).
I confess I do not know exactly where to start because this all-embracing budget was introduced by the Minister of Finance in a two-hour speech. Furthermore I think it affects directly or indirectly all Canadians.
At first sight this budget seems to be positive in some way. I was even wondering if the Minister of Finance had not read with scrutiny the speeches made by the hon. members of the Social Credit party before preparing his budget. In any case, I want to assure the Minister of Finance that we are at his entire disposal if he would like to polish off his budget and consequently widen the horizons of all Canadians.
I would like to state at this stage that whatever the members on the government side think I believe it is good and healthy for democracy that we of the Social Credit party of Canada should continue to tell the government that the main tax changes necessary to get the economy rolling again are of a fiscal and monetary nature so that the purchasing power of the taxpayer in the low income bracket may be bigger.
We cannot yet preside over the destinies of Canada, but I believe we will be in a position in the next few months to tell the government what the concerned citizens think of the present economic situation. It could be that the possibility of general elections makes the government more receptive toward the opposition. If such is the case, and I think it is, it is new evidence for the Canadian people who works hard to earn its living that it is well represented by the opposition against a government which is wont to dream in colour.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), at the start of his remarks, said:
The legislation Parliament will be asked to approve this year will provide the framework for our income tax system for many years to come.
I must say frankly that, upon hearing those words, I became somewhat apprehensive as to the future of Canadians. In fact, considering the government's record so far, it is rather frightening to be told that it is now taking steps for many years to come. However, a little further on in his speech, the minister was more reassuring, stating that it was upon the request of Canadians that he was initiating fiscal reform. Still, without offense to the hon. minister, I suggest that it would have been more honest for him to say that this was done at the urging of opposition parties which really do represent the aspirations of the Canadian people. All the government can do, as we know from the past few months, is create unemployment, inflation and emergency measures, and boost taxes when no election is in the offing. Because of this,
7542

June 30, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Beaudoin
Mr. Speaker, the government spent all its ingenuity honouring the golden calf, the trusts and the banks, allowing them to increase interest rates and thus deprive a great many people of sanitary dwellings or prevent them from acquiring their fair share or live half decently as all Canadians should in a prosperous country like Canada.
Coming back to the budget, I notice that the minister stated that the work done by the committees and leading to tax reforms helped him prepare his budget speech. It is truly gratifying to learn that the committees do serve a useful purpose and are not merely a way of keeping members of Parliament away from the House of Commons. Unhappily, we observe that many reports from those committees were never studied or discussed in the House of Commons.
Many committees did nothing but make us lose our time or enable the government to say: we are listening and the administration will be according to your will. The minister even went further and I quote:
However, through the process of debate and discussion, it has been possible to develop a program of tax reform which not only meets the needs of Canada but also reflects the views of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, such words from the minister lead us to believe that he has faithfully repeated what we of the Social Credit party, have been saying for the three years I have been a member of this House.
House leader and myself, and it was understood that we would not agree to this and that it would not be asked for.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: As there is no unanimous agreement, we will proceed normally.
It being 1.45 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to a special order and to section 8 of Standing Order 60, to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Call in the members.
Moreover, by defining what a good tax structure should be, the minister had me dreaming of an ideal Canada, where it would be nice to live thanks to a fair and equitable system. It seems almost unbelievable to me that an administration which has brought about a new economic crisis by creating unemployment, levying everstiffer taxes, deliberately making many industries non profitable and scornfully ridiculing rejection of the opinions of Canadians-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I regret to have to interrupt the hon. member, but it is 1.45 p.m.


Mr. Bechard:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Bonaventure-lles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard) on a point of order.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, as the holiday and co-operation spirit is prevailing among members and as they are all desirous that justice be meted to people who have suits pending before the courts, I wonder whether the House would be willing to deal with Bill C-243. I believe that we could pass the motions relevant to the committee report and to third reading in about 15 minutes.


Thomas Miller Bell: In this party there is complete support for the suggestion, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, since this matter was raised last night there have been some consultations, at least between the government


Edgar John Benson: That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Income Tax Act and to make certain provisions and alterations in the statute law related to or consequential upon the amendments to that act.


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


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


An hon. Member:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Edgar John Benson: that Bill C-259, to amend the Income Tax Act and other acts, be read the first time and printed.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of ways and means motions to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Old Age Security Act.
Edgar John Benson: That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Old Age Security Act.
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Old Age Security Act.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motions agreed to.

Edgar John Benson: that Bill C-260, to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Old Age Security Act, be read the first time and printed.


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

[Stage Direction]
* *
*

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of a ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax Act and other acts.
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of a ways and means motion to amend the Customs Tariff.
[Stage Direction]
June 30, 1971
Royal Assent
Edgar John Benson: That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Customs Tariff.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Edgar John Benson: that Bill C-261, to amend the Customs Tariff, be read the first time and printed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received the following communication:
Government House Ottawa, June 30,1971 Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Wishart F. Spence, O.B.E., Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 30th of June, for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient servant,
Louis-Fremont Trudeau
Brigadier General
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.


David Lewis: Down with the Senate. It is an undemocratic institution.
A message was delivered by Major Guay Vandelac, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act to establish the Canada Development Corporation
An act to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code
An act respecting the construction of an international highway bridge between Fort Frances, Ontario and International Falls, Minnesota
An act respecting pilotage
An act to amend the Post Office Act
An act to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act.


Mr. Speaker:: I remind hon. members that although it is early in the afternoon, there will be the usual get-together in room 16. I hope hon. members will find it possible to spend a few minutes to say goodbye, so that we will be prepared to leave in high spirits.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I have just been advised that we should not adjourn to room 16, but the railway committee room.

I invite my distinguished and hon. colleagues to join me for a few moments in the railway committee room following adjournment.

On motion of Mr. MacEachen the House adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 2.28 p.m. pursuant to special order made June 16, 1971, to stand adjourned until Tuesday, September 7,1971, at 2 o'clock p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday. September 7, 1971