1971-12-22

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a document which sets out the government's position regarding Book V of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. I should also like to say something about Book V, relating to the national capital, and Book VI, relating to voluntary associations.
All Canadians jl am sure agree that the nation's capital should reflect in so far as possible the spirit and aspirations of our country.
The report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism deals with this question as far as language is concerned.
I am pleased that many of the bodies referred to by the royal commission have already been making plans or taken action with regard to language and cultural aspects of the national capital. The city of Ottawa announced its program with regard to bilingualism some months ago; more recently the province of Ontario has announced a plan regarding service to its public in Canada's two official languages; representatives of voluntary organizations, business and educational bodies and private citizens joined forces recently to form the Alliance for the Development of Bilingualism in the Canadian Capital Region for the purpose of co-ordinating activities and exchanging information.

The report which has been tabled sets out more fully the government's position with regard to those of the 17 recommendations addressed to the federal government. Briefly, the government accepts the first recommendation regarding the equality of the two official languages for federal purposes. This has already been formalized in legislation, the Official Languages Act. The government also intends to continue to pursue the direct and positive role which it has been pursuing in the Capital Region, which is the second of the Royal Commission's recommendations.
Recommendations 3 through 6 and Recommendation 14 relate to various services being provided in both languages. The government accepts these recommendations, with the reservation that Recommendation 4 concerning commissionaires, elevator operators, and other personnel
dealing with the public should be implemented progressively so as to avoid hardship for unilingual employees.
Recommendations 7 through 13 are addressed to Ontario and Quebec separately or jointly or to local governments in the Capital area.
The recommendations relate to public services in the two languages, the courts and new proposed jurisdictions for various school boards. Obviously these matters fall within the jurisdiction of the provinces or the municipalities concerned. Insofar as provincial and municipal services are concerned, the co-operation of the federal government has been sought and given in certain instances in the past. The government will examine most sympathetically further possibilities of helping in other appropriate ways, if provincial or municipal authorities concerned judge this to be useful.
Recommendation 15 deals with the integration of transport and communications within the Capital area. This question is already the subject of planning between the NCC and various local authorities; the same can be said of Recommendation 16 regarding government buildings to be constructed or rented in the Capital area on both sides of the Ottawa River.
Recommendation 17 proposes the establishment of a specific advisory tripartite agency to be charged with the responsibility for co-ordination of the overall programme for the Capital area, and which it is suggested, with the passage of time, might acquire new functions and stature.
The government considers that, in addition to its role in urban planning, the National Capital Commission is the logical body to co-ordinate, at the federal level, activities to extend bilingual capabilities and services in the National Capital Region. The role of the National Capital Commission will not alter the existing allocation of responsibilities within the federal administration for achieving goals with regard to official languages and cultural development. It will, however, add a new and desirable dimension by giving other levels of government within the National Capital Region a single channel through which to seek assistance and benefit from expertise in the federal sector.
One of the complicating factors in dealing with the National Capital is the multiplicity of jurisdictions involved. In addition to the federal and two provincial governments, local and regional governments, school boards, and other authorities are in themselves very numerous. Two conclusions are inescapable. No single government or authority can by itself build a truly national capital: success depends upon the will of many governments and especially of the people they represent to give themselves to the task of creating a capital worthy of the nation. Secondly, a continuing dialogue must be maintained to assure that energies are channeled in a common direction; that in seeking the goal we are pulling together,

December 22, 1971
Bilingualism and Biculturalism
not apart. This is the ultimate object of the government's policy outlined above.
I should now like to turn briefly to the last volume of the royal commission, Book VI relating to voluntary associations. Here the commission, while analysing in depth the many facets of associational life in Canada, makes no formal recommendations. One theme, which runs strongly throughout the whole of the report, is the importance of maintaining good communications between francophone and anglophone branches of Canadian associations and between the general membership of the two major language groups. The commissioners suggested that simultaneous interpretation at annual conferences or conventions would be a useful way to assure more effective communication. I am glad to say, Mr. Speaker, that the government has been operating a modest program of assistance in this area since the beginning of the current fiscal year. We have ascertained that there is, indeed, an active interest among associations with respect to this program. The government is giving continuing consideration to Volume VI of the royal commission report and looking carefully at their observations regarding the trend of developments in this important aspect of Canadian life. Should further programs of co-operation between associations and the government be developed in the area of language, Mr. Speaker, these will be announced.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I fully agree that, as the national capital, the Ottawa region should reflect the reality of Canada. For that reason the recommendations of Volume VI of the B and B report must certainly be treated with respect. I am also pleased to see the encouragement that the government is giving to voluntary associations in this area.
I am not going to deal in detail with the government's response to the recommendations concerning the national capital region as provided in the document the Prime Minister just tabled. He was courteous enough to send me a copy of it this morning. In many respects it represents simply a declaration of the obvious. It quite properly notes that several of the recommendations are addressed to other jurisdictions where the only thing the federal government can offer is help and encouragement. The federal government cannot direct in those areas and that, of course, is how it should be under our system of government.
The National Capital Commission of course has a valuable, indeed an essential, role to play in the national capital area. I think one should note in passing that its existence involves some diminution of funds available to the municipal units in the area and that this diminution perhaps impedes thosa municipal units from making progress as rapidly as they would like to.
I fully agree that co-operation is necessary at all levels of government, although I must say that I hope the episode relating to what I believe is now called the Portage bridge is not an example of the kind of co-operation the federal government intends to display in future in this area.
As to the recommendation of the Commission on the necessity of promoting in every respect the equality between Anglophones and Francophones in the national capital, we agree with the attitude of the government which proposes to increase its role in that field. However, we stress the importance of constant and close consultations in this regard between the federal government, on the one hand, and the Quebec and Ontario governments on the other, to ensure that neither of those two governments ever feels that its rights are being encroached upon by the decisions concerning the national capital.
Our common goal must be to ensure that the capital region is a reflection of the Canadian reality. That means, of course, recognition of the English and French facts. However, it also involves a recognition of the cultural diversity of our country that goes beyond English and French. There is no recommendation in this volume of the bilingualism and biculturalism report on this subject, but we should not discuss the issue of national unity without re-emphasizing the importance of Canadian pluralism.
We should also not forget that in terms of government action we are discussing bilingualism in an institutional rather than in a personal sense. In Ottawa, as in Canada as a whole, there must be recognition of the fact that the majority of Canadians, whether they are English-speaking or French-speaking, are not bilingual. There must be acceptance of the fact of unilingualism as well, and that applies equally to French-speaking and English-speaking Canadians. The worst way to encourage bilingualism would be to try to enforce it too rigidly. There are areas where individual bilingualism is, in principle, essential. There can be do doubt about that. However, we cannot expect to correct everything overnight. There must be no injustices to older people who grew up in a different era. That, too, would be doing a disservice to the bilingualism it is desired to develop.
What we are working for, and what the commission I am sure was working for in preparing this report, is a country, and in this specific instance a capital region, where the individual Canadian can live in dignity and know that his language and origin will be respected, that he will be respected as an individual. If we remember that and apply it, we shall certainly be helping the cause of national unity.


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity that I have to speak in French in the House. I know that I am not really ready to do so, but I feel that it is a fitting occasion and I will make a try.
We of the New Democratic Party are quite satisfied with the policy of the government which is endeavouring to implement the recommendations appearing in volume V of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism.
We sincerely hope that this policy will alter our national capital, so that it may become truly representative of the bilingual and multicultural facets of our country.
We think that it is exceedingly important that this action be immediately undertaken in order to consolidate the

December 22, 1971

already established bases so that our capital will be truly national.
It is very important that all Canadians, including French-speaking Canadians, feel they are really welcome in the capital.
French-speaking Canadians have had long-standing grievances about the Anglophone character of Ottawa.
We therefore believe it is urgent for the government to make already announced arrangements so that Ottawa can become the capital of all Canadians regardless of their racial origin, language and status.
In short, we claim for each and everyone the inalienable rights that are theirs.

For too long, Mr. Speaker, too many Canadians have felt themselves to be strangers in their own capital. For too long, for too many Canadians visiting their national capital was almost like visiting a foreign land. The situation was, and is, iniquitous and one of the factors generating tension within the nation. In accepting and implementing recommendations one and two in Book V of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism which deal with the equality of the French and English languages in the federal context and the provision of services in French and English, the government will be going a long way toward removing an ancient and completely justified grievance. I am pleased to see that in his remarks, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) recognized that in attempting to do this we also recognize that a great many people in this capital are not bilingual and that provision must be made for that fact.
We also welcome the suggestion that the federal government, in accordance with the recommendations of the royal commission, will be attempting to foster a greater integration of essential services, such as transportation-, on both sides of the Ottawa river, and that there are now also enhanced prospects of a more equitable distribution of new government construction on either side of the river.
For a long time I have been of the opinion that the boundaries of what is to constitute the capital of Canada should be extended beyond the city limits of Ottawa to coincide more directly with the boundaries of the national capital region as established in the National Capital Act of 1959. Such a capital would more closely reflect the make-up of this nation in terms of language, culture and of social organization, since it would include both urban and rural districts, than does our present capital. I am pleased to see that in accepting the recommendations of the royal commission the government is moving some distance in this direction.
The recommendations envisage the establishment of a tripartite committee of the three senior governments in the capital region, the federal government, the government of Ontario and the government of Quebec. Again, this is most welcome. It should mean more co-ordination of effort, less waste and greater equality of condition.
But here I should like to enter two caveats. First, I believe that the municipalities concerned must be represented on the committee in some formal way if many
Bilingualism and Biculturalism
potential difficulties are to be anticipated and misunderstanding is to be avoided. Second, the three senior governments would seem to have equal authority. Given the current political situation in the country, I can see no way around that particular approach, but it worries me because the capital is, after all, the capital of the whole nation and there might be a tendency for the provincial governments to be too strongly influenced by purely local concerns with the result that the national interest might sometimes be lost. As I say, I can offer no concrete suggestions to overcome this potential flaw but I raise the point in the hope that some attention will be devoted to it and some effort made to avoid the pitfalls.
As to the recommendation that federal government policy on the national capital be co-ordinated insofar as possible by one body at the federal level and that the National Capital Commission is the logical body to undertake that task, we in this party are in wholehearted agreement.
Finally, with respect to the Prime Minister's remarks concerning volume six, which deals with voluntary associations, we welcome the undertaking that the government will be giving the report continuing and careful consideration. I hope that in so doing the government will, in considering the French-English aspects of the question, consider seriously as well the value of voluntary associations in developing and defining the multicultural nature of our Canadian society and frame its eventual policies accordingly.
The national capital should be the jewel in the crown of our nation. In order to be so it must reflect the true character of our nation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please! I have to interrupt the hon. member and I hope he will not mind my doing so. I know that these questions which are brought to the attention of the House from day to day by way of ministerial statements are important, but the rule is there that the comments of hon. members acting as spokesmen for their respective parties should be brief. I have listened to the hon. member with great interest. The statement he is making is of significance. Nevertheless, an effort should be made by hon. members to limit, to some extent at least, the contributions they make during this part of our proceedings.


Douglas Charles Rowland: You anticipated me by about five seconds, Mr. Speaker. I simply wanted to say on behalf of my party that we welcome this additional evidence of further efforts to make the capital more truly reflect the nature of our country.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, everybody sincerely hopes for a national capital which would really reflect the existence of the various Canadian ethnical groups. However, this ideal capital which we all want requires understanding and co-operation from those living around it.
When we hear people complaining that the capital of Ottawa is not giving them their due, we must ask ourselves if they are ready to make the necessary sacrifices to benefit from it. They are ready to avail themselves of its

December 22, 1971
Regional Economic Expansion
advantages but are seldom willing to meet their obligations.
The statement of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is quite in order. Regarding bilinguism, we learned through the Commission's reports that French is spoken in Quebec and English in the other provinces. Everyone has known that for a long time.
The Commission's recommendations are far from being clear. Referring to Volume VI, the Prime Minister said and I quote:

Here the Commission, while analysing in depth the many facets of associational life in Canada, makes no formal recommendations.

Mr. Speaker, I believe we have the wrong approach to this problem if, for instance, we compel people of 40, 45 and even 50 years of age to learn a second language. To my mind this is abusing the good will of people. The Commission should recommend-and the government should follow suit-that a federal-provincial conference on education be held in order to look into the possibility of teaching the two languages right from the first school year across Canada.
If we took such action, in less than 10 years our country, including its capital, would become bilingual.
We should not attempt the impossible by forcing 40- or 50-year-old citizens to learn French or English. The right hon. Prime Minister did not wait until he was 52 to learn English; that is why he speaks it so well now, because he learned it in his youth, and he knows that. However, the Leader of the Official Opposition has trouble learning French because he started too late. That is a striking example, Mr. Speaker.
If the government suggested that the provinces-since education comes under provincial jurisdiction-finance their departments of education in order to have French and English taught in every school in Canada from the first year, we would not have to say this today: We want a bilingual capital, we want bilingualism, we want goodwill between English-speaking and French-speaking citizens. The whole country would be naturally bilingual, as a result of education.
That is the solution to the problem and that is my recommendation following the right hon. Prime Minister's statement.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. lames A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion under Standing Order 43. I do so because of recent newspaper articles concerning the bankruptcies of several firms sponsored by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and a letter of reply by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion admitting that his department has paid more than $500,-

000 in job-creating subsidies to firms which subsequently closed down and another $1,400,000 paid or pledged to companies that have since made substantial lay-offs. In view of the minister's admission in this respect, I would move, with unanimous consent:
That the Standing Committee on Public Accounts be instructed to review DREE procedures and guidelines in accepting applications under the Regional Development Incentives Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the proposed motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be put because there is not unanimity.



QUESTION ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Valade: Since 1966, how much money did the federal government allocate to industries in (a) Ontario (b) Quebec for modernization or development?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: ($000s) (a) $101,539; (b) $107,608. These figures include the Defence Industry Productivity Program (DIP), the Program for the Advancement of Industrial Technology (PAIT), the Industrial Design Assistance Program (IDAP) and the General Adjustment Assistance Program (GAAP).
In so far as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is concerned: Grants paid to industries for modernization and expansion, since 1966: (a) $4,014,959; (b) $17,077,691.



FISP OPERATION

Mr. Alexander: 1.	What is the anticipated administrative cost regarding the Family Income and Security Plan during its first year of operation?
2.	How many people (a) are involved in the processing of Family and Youth Allowance cheques (b) will be involved during the first year of the Family Income Security Plan's operation?
3.	What is the breakdown of children of the ages one to seventeen years inclusive for the year 1970?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Department of National Health and Welfare and Statistics Canada as follows: 1. It is anticipated that the administrative costs for one fiscal year after the program has been established
December 22, 1971

Questions
would be approximately $13.5 million or about 1.7 per cent of the $800 million being paid out in FISP benefits.
2.	(a) 730; (b) it is anticipated that when the Family Income Security Plan has been fully implemented the number will be about 1,477.
3.	The attached table provides a breakdown of the number of children of the ages one to seventeen inclusive as of June 1,1970.
Estimated breakdown of children of ages one to seventeen years, Canada, as of June 1, 1970
Age	Population
1	361,000
2	362,600
3	377,400
4	402,700
5	441,800
6	456,800
7	467,400
8	464,100
9	471,300
10	470,800
11	467,500
12	461,600
13	453,600
14	443,600
15	431,400
16	420,500
17	412,200
Total 1 to 17 inclusive	7,366,300



POLLUTION CONTROL-ELK RIVER, B.C.

Mr. Rose: 1.	Does the government have a monitoring program for pollution control on the Elk River in British Columbia and, if so, how long has the program been in effect?
2.	Will the government make public the nature and degree of the Elk River pollution as well as the source of effluent?
3.	Are steps being taken to control pollution on the Elk River to improve the quality of the water?


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: 1. No.
2.	N/A
3.	Yes. The British Columbia Department of Recreation and Conservation, in their capacity as administrators of the Fisheries Act on behalf of the Federal Government, is conducting an environmental protection investigation in the Elk River region at the present time.



WORK FORCE-PERCENTAGE OF WOMEN WORKERS

Mr. Mather: 1.	What percentage of the work force are women?
2.	What percentage of women workers are (a) single (b) married (c) divorced?
3.	What percentage of the voters are women?
4.	What percentage of policy-making federal government jobs are held by women?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by Statistics Canada,
the Chief Electoral Officer and the Treasury Board Secretariat as follows: 1. The labour force survey for September, 1971 showed that 33 per cent of the labour force were women.
2.	In September, 1971, the labour force survey showed that among women employees: 32 per cent were single, 59 per cent were married, and 9 per cent had other marital statuses (divorced, widowed, legally separated).
3.	No information available.
4.	It is not possible to characterize jobs in the federal Public Service as policy-making or not policy-making. However, if the portion of the Public Service in which some contribution is made to policy development is taken as being the employees in the Executive Category, the Scientific and Professional Category, and the Administrative and Foreign Service Category, the percentage of women in this portion of the Public Service is 14.2 per cent.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY-ROAD SIGNS

Mr. Robinson: In view of the bilingual program in Canada, will the government consider the advisability of making all road signs on the Trans-Canada Highway and other federal roads bilingual?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Department of Transport, the National Capital Commission and the Department of Public Works, as follows: At the present time the Federal Government is pursuing a policy of making all road signs on Federal roads bilingual. This policy is being acted on as quickly as practical. The road signs on the Trans-Canada Highway are the responsibility of the province through which the highway passes. All the provinces use the "Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Canada" as a guide and this manual supports the principles of symbolized and bilingual signs.
All road signs on NCC controlled parkways and driveways in the National Capital Region are bilingual. These signs are updated as required, as for instance when standard symbols replace written signs. As far as highway facilities under the Department of Public Works' jurisdiction are concerned, signing is generally in accordance with the provincial standards in which the facility is located.



TAKE-HOME INFORMATION ON NEW AUTOMOBILES

Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to making the provision of take-home information on new automobiles available to the consumer without charge?


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: No.



NUMBER OF MURDERS

Mr. Woolliams: 1.	How many murders were reported in Canada for the years 1968, 1969,1970 and 1971 to date?
2.	How many homicides have been reported in Canada of police officers in 1968,1969,1970 and 1971 to date?

December 22, 1971
Questions
3.	Has there been an increase in the crime of murder since 1968, having taken into account the increase in population and what is the percentage of this increase?


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, the answer to starred question No. 1,972, like No. 2,042, is lengthy and would require an undue amount of time to read. Therefore I ask that the replies to these questions be tabled and recorded in Hansard as if they had been read.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The answer referred to above follows.]
Statistics Canada reports that: 1. The number of murders in Canada reported by the police to Statistics Canada for the years 1968 to 1970 follow: 1968, 314; 1969, 342; 1970, 430,; figures for 1971 are not available.
/one incident involves one suspect and forty victims.
2.	The number of murders of policemen reported in Canada for the years 1968 to 1970 follow: 1968, 5; 1969, 5; 1970, 3; 1971, not available.
3.	The following figures show the percentage increase from one year to the next in the crime of murder, taking into account the increase in the population: From 1968 to 1969, 6.5 per cent; From 1969 to 1970, 23.0 per cent;
In 1970 one incident involves one suspect and forty victims.



SUBMISSION BY THE TOWN OF TRACADIE TO MINISTER OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION

Mr. Coates: 1.	Was a submission presented to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion by the Town of Tracadie, New Brunsiwck and, if so (a) on what date was such a submission made (b) what were the names of the persons who met with the Minister (c) what was the result of this meeting?
2.	Is the subject of the submission presented by the Town of Tracadie under consideration by the government at the present time and, if so, on what date will a decision be rendered on the recommendations contained in the submission?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister oi Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. Yes. (a) September 16, 1971. (b) Mayor Losier; Deputy Mayor Ferguson; Councillors: Laplante, Losier, Robichaud and Saulnier; H. Breau, M.P. (c) It was suggested to the members of the delegation that they might wish to make their submission to the government of the Province of New Brunswick which could then, if it wished, after an assessment of its priorities, pursue the subject under the federal-provincial FRED agreement for Northeast New Brunswick.
2.	See answer to 1 (c).



ABORTIONS

Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many legal abortions have been performed in Canada during each of the past ten years?
2.	How many illegal abortions have been performed in Canada during each of the Dast ten years?
IMr. Woolliams.]


Mr. Bruce Howard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as Statistics Canada is concerned: 1. Statistics Canada only began compiling information on abortions when the amendment to the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1969 regarding abortions came into force on August 26, 1969. Data prior to this and information for the Northwest Territories are not available. The following table provides the available data.
Reported Number of Thera-Period	peutic Abortions in Canada
August 26/69-Dec. 31/69	542
Jan. 1/70-Dec. 31/70	11,200
Jan. 1/71-June 30/71	14,188
2. This information is not available.



HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSINGS

Mr. Mather: 1.	How many deaths in Canada in 1969 and 1970 were attributable to unsafe rail-highway grade crossings?
2.	How many crossings exist where train and traffic volume justify improvements?


Gérard Duquet: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. In 1969 there were 399 accidents attributable to a number of causes at highway-railway grade crossings which resulted in death to 120 persons and injuries to 519 persons. The figures for 1970 were 384, 103 and 516, respectively.
2. The commission does not maintain a record of which of the over 31,000 highway-railway grade crossings carry train and vehicular traffic sufficient to justify improvements. Rail and highway traffic volume is a consideration which is established subsequent to formal application for crossing improvement, protection or elimination made to the commission by the responsible road authority.



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Mr. Maclnnis: 1.	What are the names, ages and salaries or stipends of all officers and Board members of the Cape Breton Development Corporation?
2.	What was the total expense account of Mr. Robinson Ord for the years 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71?
3.	What was the total amount of Mr. Gerald Blackmore's expenses for the years 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71?
4.	How many trips outside of Cape Breton did Mr. Blackmore make on Cape Breton Development Corporation business and to where?
5.	Have any fees or remuneration of any kind ever been paid by DEVCO to any officer now in the employ of the Cape Breton Development Corporation prior to his employment by the Corporation and, if so, to whom was it paid and what was the amount?


Jean Marchand: December 22, 1971

Officers:
Name
Tom Kent, President B. A. Graham,
Vice President and Executive Secretary J. A. Teeter, Vice President (Industrial Development)
G. Blackmore,
Vice President (Coal)
Age	Salary	
49	$55,000 per annum	
42	It is not the practice of the	
	Corporation to disclose	data
	on salary or other payments	
50	to Corporate officials staff.	and
N. MacPherson,
Treasurer	64
Board Members:	
Tom Kent	49
J. J. Gagnon	52
R. I. Grant	55
D. O. Hartigan	55
H. A. Renouf	54
K. West	54
Each Director, other than the President, is paid $2,000 per annum in addition to $100 per meeting day.
2., 3. and 4. It is not the practice of the Corporation to disclose data on salary or other payments to Corporate officials and staff.
5.	No.



ESKIMO CHILDREN-LANGUAGE TRAINING

Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What program, if any, was devised to assist teachers teaching English to Eskimo children?
2.	Do they attend special in-service training courses before beginning teaching English and, if so, for how long and who conducts the courses?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. In the Northwest Territories, special workshops are organized and directed by experts in this field. From these workshops, courses are developed. One of the courses most extensively used is called "Let's begin English." Well qualified teacher consultants provide assistance to teachers who require it and visit schools where help is most urgently needed.
2. Yes. The duration of these courses varies from three days to two weeks. The courses are conducted by specialists in the field of teaching English as a second language. This year's courses for teachers going into the Frobisher and Keewatin regions were conducted by Mr. M. Mallon. In the MacKenzie District, the courses were conducted by Dr. Gloria Dampson.



COST OF CENSUS

Mr. Robinson: What was the estimated cost of the 1971 Census?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Statistics Canada reports that: The cost of the 1971 Census of Canada from
Questions
the 1967-68 fiscal year up to the end of the 1971-72 fiscal year is estimated at $38,000,000.
.DEPARTMENT OF SECRETARY OF STATE-ENGAGEMENT OF PUBLIC RELATIONS FIRM


Mr. Fairweather: 1.	Has the Department of the Secretary of State engaged the services of Break, Pain and Watt, a Toronto public relations firm and, if so (a) from what date (b) what is the term of the contract (c) how much public money is involved in obtaining the services of this firm?
2.	What services will be performed by Break, Pain and Watt which cannot be undertaken by Information Canada and the Department's own information division?
[Editor's note: The answer, taken as read, follows:]
1.	Yes. (a), (b) and (c). Term of Contracts: (i) Aug. 28, 1970 to Oct. 31, 1970, $19,596.32; (ii) Jan. 4, 1971 to April 2, 1971, $20,420.56; (iii) April 5, 1971 to Oct. 4, 1971, $40,545.93; (iv) June 1, 1971 to Sept. 3, 1971, $5,173.54; (v) Nov. 1, 1971 to Feb. 29, 1972, up to $68,500.00.
2.	The services performed under contracts (i), (ii) and (iii) were the planning and development of recommendations for a communications programme for the bilingualism program, the development of implementation studies with respect to some of those recommendations, and the carrying out of certain aspects of the communications program.
The service performed under contract (iv) was the development of a plan for the promotion of Canadian citizenship.
The services performed under contract (v) have been the provision to the Information Services Branch of leadership, administrative direction and implementation support to enable it to meet its immediate and on-going day-to-day work requirements until these duties could be assumed by the new Director of Information Services on December 9. Since his arrival, the services now being performed are the provision of assistance to the new Director and to Information Services in updating its long-range planning forecasts so as to meet future requirements.



COLOMBO PLAN

Mr. Robinson: What has been accomplished in economic development by the Colombo Plan?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. The economic growth histories of the Colombo Plan region countries are so diverse that generalizations are not too reliable. Such factors as declines in world prices of traditional exports, drought and political tensions can have a marked effect on individual rates of development. Over the past decade the average increase in GNP for all developing countries has been approximately 5 p. 100. In 1969 nine Colombo Plan countries Ceylon, Korea, India, Indonesia, Iran, Burma, Pakistan, the Philippines and Thailand achieved a real GNP growth rate of 6.9 p. 100. At the same time population in the developing countries has been growing at the rate of 2.5 p.

December 22, 1971
Questions
100 (In the industrialized countries the population growth averaged 1.2 p. 100.)
In general, Canadian assistance has been concentrated on major projects which have a high priority in the development plans of recipient countries and in fields in which Canadian technological experience is of special value. Canada has concentrated on projects such as the construction of nuclear power plants, hydro electric power installations, power transmission lines, transportation facilities as well as the provision of equipment and expertise in the fields of agriculture, forestry, fisheries and education.



EDUCATION-ESKIMO CHILDREN

Mr. Orlikow: 1.	In each year since 1958, how many Eskimo children started school at the grade 1 level?
2.	How many of the Eskimo children in each school since 1958 finished grades 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,10 and 11?
3.	Is the percentage of Eskimo school children reaching high school substantially lower than the percentage of other Canadian school children reaching high school and, if so, has the government conducted any studies to ascertain the basic reasons for this difference?


Mr. Judd Buchanan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. 196869, 669; 1969-70, 739; 1970-71, 925.
for previous years see answer to Parliamentary Question No. 1,444 tabled in the House of Commons on April 16,
1969.
Grade	1968-69	1969-70	1970-71V	388	428	455VI	298	312	328VII	139	183	219VIII	111	201	119IX	32	59	70X	16	25	31XI	11	9	20
for previous years' information see answer to Parliamentary Question No. 1,444 tabled in the House of Commons on April 16, 1969.
3.	See answer provided to Parliamentary Question No. 1,444 tabled in the House of Commons on April 16, 1969.



CANADIAN CONTRIBUTION TO COLOMBO PLAN

Mr. Robinson: 1.	What has been Canada's total financial contribution to the Colombo Plan since its inception?
2.	How have the funds contributed been utilized?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. Canada's total bilateral financial contribution to the developing countries of the Colombo Plan area since the plan's inception in 1951 until the end of fiscal year 1971/72 was $1,377 million.
2. The funds were utilized in the following manner: Food Aid, $597 million; Grant Aid, 402 million; Development Loans 378 million.
IMr. Sharp.]



NUMBER OF PERSONS SENTENCED UNDER HABITUAL CRIMINAL SECTIONS OF THE CRIMINAL CODE

Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many persons have been sentenced under the Habitual Criminal sections of the Criminal Code and sentenced to preventive detention in each province in the years 1969 and 1970?
2.	How many habitual criminals are still in prison after (a) ten years (b) five years?
3.	How many of these people (a) have been paroled (b) violated their parole (c) returned to prison (d) received paroles in each of the years 1969 and 1970?
4.	Do the inmates serve their original sentence and then serve x-number of years before parole is considered?
5.	What special programs are available to these inmates and in what prisons are these programs available in British Columbia?
6.	How much time must be spent on these programs before parole is considered for these prisoners?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: 1. 1969: Quebec, 4; Alberta, 1; British Columbia, 3; Total 8. 1970: Quebec, 11.
2.	(a) 3; (b) 4.
3.	(a) 112 (total to date); (b) 48; (c) 48; (d) 1969-17; 1970- 22.
4.	No: An inmate who has been declared an habitual criminal serves for an indeterminate period of time in lieu of his original sentence. However, pursuant to Section 694 of the Criminal Code, the inmate's case is reviewed once in every year to determine whether he should be granted parole.
5.	All persons serving a term of preventive detention enjoy the same privileges and opportunities to participate in institutional programs, as other types of inmates. In addition, through diagnostic, collaboration between treatment staff and the inmates involved, an individual program is developed to meet the specific needs of the person. These programs take the form of specialized individual treatment consisting of personal counselling and/or group therapy. British Columbia Penitentiary is the only federal correctional institution in British Columbia which provides a group therapy program of this nature.
6.	No mandatory term of imprisonment is prescribed, for inmates serving indeterminate sentences, before they are eligible for parole consideration. Each case is reviewed once in every year pursuant to Section 694 of the Criminal Code to determine whether parole should be granted.



OLD AGE SECURITY

Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What was the total amount collected in the form of Old Age Security Tax in 1969 and 1970?
2.	What amount was paid out in 1969 and 1970 on Old Age Pensions of $75.00 per month?
3.	What amount was paid out in supplementary payments in 1969 and 1970?
4.	What is the balance of the Old Age Security Fund?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1.
December 22, 1971

1968-69
$1,626.1 million
$1,831.0 million
2. The pension was increased to 76.50 effective January 1968; to $78 effective January 1969; and to $79.58 effective January 1970. Total amounts paid were as follows: 1968-69	1969-70
$1,296,849,281	$1,467,056,517
3.	1968-69

4.	$672.3 million as of September 30, 1971.



GULF SHORE HIGHWAY-PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND

Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What was the commencement date for construction of the Gulf Shore highway in the Prince Edward Island National Park?
2.	What was the total cost of construction for the highway and of subsequent additions or improvement to it?
3.	When was it decided that a bridge across the Rustico Harbour would not be erected?
4.	What were the reasons for such decision?
5.	What expenditure has already been made on research for this bridge?
6.	Has a definite decision been made to abandon plans for the erection of this bridge?
7.	What alternative plans have been made to overcome the transportation gap which the non-construction of the bridge constitutes?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. April 1956.
2.	$2,970,000 plus $480,000 to replace Covehead Bridge in 1963-64.
3.	June 1964.
4.	Because of difficulties involved in constructing this bridge namely: stabilization of nearly a mile of shifting sand dunes; construction of footings under extremely difficult conditions of tidal action; saline erosion and sand movement; spanning of a considerable breadth of navigable waterway by providing a swing-span bridge; cost of construction and expensive maintenance problem to prevent encroachment of sand dunes and saline erosion of metallic structures.
5.	$40,000 for a model study carried out by the National Research Council in 1963.
6.	Yes.
7.	The provincial government has proposed a causeway that would link North Rustico and Rustico Island. This proposal was turned down for the following reasons: a) It would have significant adverse effects upon the Park; b) A pedestrian/vehicle conflict would result because of the location of such a causeway.
A development concept currently under review includes a parkway proposal which would traverse the inland environment and provide for penetration routes to the shore.



MAINTENANCE COST OF CANADIAN EMBASSIES

Mr. MacRae: 1. In order of cost, what were the five most expensive Embassies to maintain in the past fiscal year?
Questions
2. What five High Commission Offices were the most expensive to maintain in the past fiscal year?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. Paris, France; Washington, U.S.A.: Brussels, Belgium; Tokyo, Japan; and Moscow, USSR.
2. London, England; New Delhi, India; Islamabad, Pakistan; Lagos, Nigeria; and Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.



TRANSLATION SERVICES-RECRUITMENT OF UNILINGUAL EMPLOYEES

Mr. Godin: 1.	Has the government recruited any unilingual (a) French (b) English employees for translation services during the past two years and, if so, how many of each?
2.	Are upgrading courses offered to these employees and, if so, how many have taken or are taking such courses?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: I am
informed by the Public Service Commission: 1. No unilingual translators have been appointed in the past two years. However, six unilingual English-speaking persons have been appointed as support staff ror the Translation Bureau.
2. Language training courses are available to these employees in accordance with overall government policy. To date, none have been placed in the language training stream.



NATIONAL DEFENCE-YUKON AIRCRAFT

Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What was the total number of Yukon aircraft purchased by the government?
2.	What was (a) the cost per plane (b) the cost for spares (c) the total cost?
3.	When did the Yukon first go into service?
4.	Were any of these aircraft placed in storage for the purpose of replacements as required and, if so, how many and on what dates were they placed in service?
5.	Has the entire fleet been sold and, if so, to whom and at what price?
6.	With respect to each aircraft, what was (a) the total number of airframe hours (b) the total hours remaining before overhaul (c) the total hours remaining on each aircraft engine before major overhaul?
7.	Were engines included among the spares and, if so, what hours remained on each before major overhaul?
8.	Did any of these aircraft carry a current certificate of air worthiness?


Mr. lack Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1. Twelve.
2.	(a) 10 freighter/passenger aircraft at $6.5 million each; two passenger aircraft at $6.7 million each; (b) spares $20.1 million; (c) $132.3 million (including development, tooling and training simulators).
3.	February 1961.
4.	No.
5.	Yes. One aircraft and one spare engine to Bachelor Enterprises, Miami, Florida for $250,000; eleven aircraft, peculiar spares and the remaining spare engines to Com-

December 22, 1971
Questions
pania Inter-America SA and Beaver Enterprises Limited, Montreal, jointly for $1.1 million.
a/c Serial Number	(a) Airframe Hours	(b) and (c) Hours remaining before overhaul15921	12,928	646; 1,513; 97; 1,04115922	16.082	2,678; 2,481; 1,432; 42715923	14,866	3,721; 1,627; 1,507; 3,35115924	13,015	2,669; 2,602; 2,112; 1,95715925	14,038	1,696; 1,511; 1,513; 1,27915926	16,808	3,136; 1,167; 2,088; 1,73115927	16,929	1,983; 2,217; 2,601; 3,88115928	15,800	2,722 ; 2,258; 2,351;3,18515929	8,462	1,028 ; 834; 860; 1,99215930	17,266	2,590; 484; 1,064; 2,86515931	14,605	nil; 384; 491; 48615932	8,247	1,328; 2,220; 2,033; 1,8427. Yes.	Unserviceable	ServiceableEngines	Engines5009	NIL	5011	2,4235020	NIL	5019	3,5795024	1,098	5025	2,1325026	1,578	5038	4,5005027	465	5048	1,7745045	521	5050	2,7415052	1,071	5058	3,6005055	1,612	5059	1,4445057	620	5060	3,7015063	2,1595072	1,7208.	No.



DREE GRANTS

Mr. McGrath: What was the number of grants and the average grant size to companies, who before receiving a DREE grant, had an employed capital of (a) up to $249,999 (b) $250,000 to $499,999 (c) $500,000 to $999,999 (d) $1,000,000 to $1,999,999 (e) $2,000,000 to $3,999,999 (f) $4,000,000 to $4,999,999 (g) $5,000,000 to $9,999,999 (h) $10,000,000 and over?


Jean Marchand: The requested information is not accumulated or kept by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.



LAC MEGANTIC-CONSTRUCTION OF FEDERAL BUILDING

Mr. Latulippe: Does the government intend to construct in the near future a building on the site of the old Post Office that would accommodate federal services such as the Post Office, Customs, Manpower and Immigration centres and the Unemployment Insurance Commission in the Town of Lac Megantic in the constituency of Compton?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: Yes. It is the intention in 1972-73 if funds are available.



PUBLIC RELATIONS SERVICES-INDIAN-ESKIMO AFFAIRS

Mr. Barnett: Does the Indian Affairs Branch of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, in the Province of Alberta, engage any non-governmental persons or agencies to provide public relations services for the Branch and, if so, who are they and what amount of annual or other remuneration is paid to each of them?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, Williams and Wilson Limited from Vancouver. $2,083.33 monthly plus $8,000 for out-ofpocket expenses.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
1971 CENSUS-KAMOURASKA CONSTITUENCY

Mr. Ryan: Is the government currently studying the problem of noise pollution in urban centres and, if so, how and with what results?
Return tabled.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. ]. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notice of motion No. 261?

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 261-Mr. Anderson:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the United States communication of 1970 proposing the construction of an oil pipeline from Alaska to the Southern 48 States via Canada, referred to by Mr. James Akins of the United States State Department as quoted on page 10 of the Washington Daily News of 18 October 1971.
Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, unhappily it is not possible to accept the request tabled by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson) since no communication of the kind requested exists. The United States has made no formal or specific proposal involving specific Arctic pipeline projects nor has there been any

December 22, 1971

substantive discussion with the United States government on this subject although it was raised briefly at one meeting, between Canadian and United States officials, on the subject of bilateral trade in energy commodities. I therefore, with great regret, ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw the motion.


Mr. Anderson:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On November 18 I placed question No. 2,152 on the order paper. It concerns the Ministry of Transport. Since, if the government gets its way, we will be adjourning until some time in February, I am thwarted in my efforts to get an answer to this very important question which concerns the instrument landing system at the airport at St. John's. Your Honour has said on a number of occasions that the oral question period is not the proper time to ask questions of a local nature. Consequently, in accordance with Your Honour's advice I placed this very important question on the order paper. May I also add that on the same day I wrote the Minister of Transport but I have not had any satisfaction from that source either. I am wondering what other avenue is open to me because my question concerns matters of safety regarding the operation of the airport, and I understand from information I have received today that the instrument landing system is still not working.


James Alexander Jerome: I only know that we could scarcely get a subject in which the Minister of Transport is more vitally concerned because he flies in and out of that airport every week, so I know he will be diligent in preparing an answer to the question.


Mr. Baldwin:: That is a poor excuse.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. When the minister appeared before the standing committee a couple of weeks ago he suggested that the Indian Association of Alberta had not properly accounted for the funds allotted to it. Has the minister now had an opportunity to look into the matter and is he satisfied that the Indian Association of Alberta has properly accounted for all funds given to it?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the situation is still the same and we are auditing the books concerned. Obviously some amounts have not been spent for the scheduled purposes. But, as to the other part of these amounts, they are now being investigated by government officials and I did not yet receive a final report on this.


Paul Yewchuk: In view of the minister's answer that he is not yet clear on this matter, would he have objection to representatives of the Indian Association of Alberta appearing before the standing committee in order to give a proper public accounting and to try to clear their name of the allegations that have been made?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the committee is not under my authority.


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Before the House rises, will the minister make a complete detailed statement on the serious financial irresponsibility which he claims exists on the part of the Indian Association of Alberta in its relations with his department, and will he place the entire matter before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am not responsible either for the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.


Paul Yewchuk: In view of the apparent breakdown in communication between the minister and the Indian Association of Alberta and in view of the resignation of Harold Cardinal, the president, I wonder whether the minister would consider taking the same course of action in order that a more effective minister can be placed in this position?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.



PUBLIC AFFAIRS


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: My question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the Prime Minister's opinion, as expressed in an interview with James Reston of the New York Times released yesterday, that the emergence in contemporary Canada of press, television, union and university criticism of authority is pushing society "toward a breakdown", does he intend to ask that this subject be added to the terms of reference of the special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons

December 22, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
set up to look into measures needed to deal with emergency situations in Canada?


An hon. Member:: Author?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will certainly take the member's representation into consideration, Mr. Speaker.


John Edward Broadbent: I repudiate the suggestion that it was a representation. It is a very important question. In view of the profound importance to a free society of the existence of many and diverse centres of criticism, would the Prime Minister either make a statement on motions clarifying his meaning or, failing this, repudiate entirely the implication that he is committed to the restriction of free criticism?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I cannot understand why the hon. member wants the matter referred to a committee in the first place and then says it has no importance.


John Edward Broadbent: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In refusing to answer the first question adequately the Prime Minister completely distorted what I had to say in the second.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that that is hardly a point of order.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
Considering that in the last few days he has received a brief from the Quebec Hog Producers Association asking that the federal government or the Department of Agriculture pay part of a grant to compensate for losses by Quebec hog producers, would the minister tell this House if the government intends to grant this request?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have announced a program that will be initiated under the Agricultural Stabilization Act as soon as we have the figures for 1971.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hillsborough.


Mr. Macquarrie:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder whether the hon. member for Hillsborough would mind if I allowed the hon. member for Richmond a supplementary. I believe he was waiting for the interpretation.


Léonel Beaudoin: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Would the minister tell us if he intends to implement the recommendation that his department reimburse certain sums that the Quebec hog producers have lost last year?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, this will not be done on the basis of losses for individual producers. There will be an average deficiency payment determined and of course it will be paid to all producers.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he is now able to answer my question of a few days ago regarding Canada's aid program with reference to the millions of suffering people in recently war-torn and long-suffering Bangla Desh?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am now in a position to say that, although the situation remains fluid in view of the formal cessation of hostilities, it is now possible to proceed to disburse some of the $18 million which I announced would be available for the relief of Pakistani refugees in India. To help meet these needs both for relief and rehabilitation while they are in India and for a limited period after they are repatriated, a first tranche of $5 million has been decided upon. Two million dollars will be distributed to the United Nations' High Commissioner for Refugees in his capacity as the international focal point for refugee relief, and $3 million will be channelled through Canadian voluntary agencies which are supporting relief programs in India and in East Pakistan.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if the government's attitude is one of encouragement to those many Canadian organizations and individuals which have contributed generously on an individual basis to this area of need?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In order to give tangible evidence of our support we are allocating government funds to those agencies which we hope will encourage them to raise money voluntarily.


BANGLA DESH-POSSIBLE RECOGNITION BY CANADA
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can he inform the House whether any steps have been taken toward the diplomatic recognition of the new country of Bangla Desh?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the House will agree that until there is evidence of a government being in control in that area it would be unwise to proceed with recognition or an exchange of diplomats.
December 22, 1971


SUGGESTED CONFERENCE TO PLAN ASSISTANCE IN RECONSTRUCTION IN EAST PAKISTAN
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first question, has the minister considered calling a conference of development agencies, both public and voluntary, to plan Canadian assistance in the immense task of reconstruction and will the government consider, without prejudice to the question of formal diplomatic recognition, communicating with the civil authorities of Bangla Desh or East Pakistan with a view to offering Canadian development aid?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me it would be well for us to utilize the international agencies available for this purpose. That is the purpose I had in mind when I said that $2 million would be allocated to the High Commissioner for Refugees who is the focal point for distribution of relief. I do not believe we can organize distribution of relief in Canada. It must be done on the spot.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the hon. member for Labelle wanted to put a supplementary to the one put before.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. I should like to ask if he has met with a large delegation of farmers from the province of Quebec?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


INCOME TAX
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue and has to do with the employees' tax deduction returns that will have to be made once the Governor General has given royal assent to the so-called tax reform bill. When are these returns being sent out to be completed by employees?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, these returns I believe have already been distributed.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister a supplementary because I have some of the forms here headed "TD-1, Rev. 1972." The form deals with claims for personal exemptions, exemptions for single, divorced or separated people and for widows or widowers, exemptions for wholly dependent children, total exemptions, and so on. I am informed that these forms
Inquiries of the Ministry
were sent out three weeks ago before Parliament passed the bill. Was this intended as another affront to this institution?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Certainly not, Mr. Speaker. The application of these forms would, of course, be subject to the final decision of Parliament.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, how can the minister explain the sending out of returns containing all the amendments provided for in the bill that was then before Parliament three weeks before Parliament dealt with it? Surely we are coming to a state where bureaucracy and autocracy are running this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, this was done so that firms could arrange their affairs in such a way that if and when Parliament gave final approval to the legislation the benefits by way of lower taxes could go into effect immediately in the new year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: That frivolous explanation is not accepted. Did the minister have another leak in his department as to what the House of Commons and the Senate were going to do with this bill?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think I have to bring to the attention of hon. members who contribute from their seats on the back benches to debate, to the question period or to other proceedings from time to time by way of interruptions that this is not in keeping with the dignity of Parliament. I am not referring to any member in particular, but I think all hon. members would want to exercise self-discipline in this regard and appreciate that this adds nothing to the efficiency of our debates or the dignity of Parliament and the reputation of the institution. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I apologize to the hon. member. A point of order is being raised by an hon. member.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is as a result of your admonition concerning interruptions. Could the House now hear the supplementary question that was asked by the right hon. member?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


PENSIONS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. On November 26 as well as on a number of other occasions I asked the minister what progress is being made in making the necessary arrangements so that

December 22, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
retired armed forces and RCMP personnel may get their pensions escalated without having to wait until age 60. The last answer was that an effort was being made to achieve the reconciliation to make this possible. Now that it is Christmas, can the minister report progress on this matter?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I can report progress. I think the hon. gentleman is aware that in order to effect the purpose he is seeking legislation will be required. I think he is as well aware as I am that our legislative calendar is a little crowded.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the government thinks the House can take six or seven weeks off, could we not find time to deal with this matter?


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the admission by the minister in a letter to Le Soleil that over $500,000 was paid out in grants under the Regional Industrial Incentives Act to firms in Quebec that subsequently went bankrupt, is he prepared to make known to the House the criteria used in evaluating those applications under the Regional Development Incentives Act?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I trust the minister would not make this statement now. The hon. member has asked a very general question. The minister should indicate whether he would want to make a statement on motions.

Hon. ]ean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion): Mr. Speaker, I am merely rising on a question of privilege. I think that the amount of $500,000 is probably correct in relation to a total of $100 million which have been paid. That is a lot better than an error committed by a certain well known government concerning the heavy water plant in Nova Scotia.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask a supplementary question. The minister is obviously very sensitive on this point, and well he should be, in view of the criticisms levelled at the program, especially in the province of Quebec. I would ask him whether in view of the subsequent revelation that over $2 million has been paid out to firms in Quebec that have either gone bankrupt or, subsequent to receiving the grants, have had substantial layoffs, will he explain to the House what the policy was on which he based his decisions in making these grants, and did he refer to well known authorities such as Dun and Bradstreet before making the decisions?


Mr. Speaker:: Again I suggest to the hon. member, particularly in relation to the first part of his question-the latter part was specific-that he is asking a very general question.

Unless the minister wishes to reply briefly, I would point out that this type of information should normally be given on motions.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to keep the record straight. Indeed, figures given at random create very grave prejudice. Moreover, those figures being given in this House are given a false interpretation by the member.


James Aloysius McGrath: As one further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, the minister can clear the air on this matter very simply if he will agree to make a statement on motions tomorrow, in view of the accusations levelled at him in Quebec that his program is patronage ridden in that province.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Crowfoot on a supplementary.


Mr. I. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. It deals with the same subject matter that was raised by the hon. member for St. John's East. In the minister's dual capacity as national organizer for the Liberal party and the minister in charge-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -of grants under DREE-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot ask a question in those terms. He can ask a question of the minister in his capacity as the minister responsible for a certain part of the administration, but certainly not in his capacity as leader or deputy leader of a party in any province. I am sure the hon. member would like to rephrase the question.


Mr.   Homer@: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I certainly accept your suggestion and I will rephrase the question. Could the minister, in his capacity as minister in charge of the making of grants under DREE, assure the House that there is no conflict of interest in granting these moneys and that there are no political bagmen receiving information from his department as to whom to tag for political funds?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Two million dollars out of $100 million to the Liberal party.


Jean Marchand: That is disgusting.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Red Deer.


Jean Marchand: Prove one case.
December 22, 1971


Mr. Nowlan:: Get up on a point of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The comments I made a moment ago about interruptions from hon. members apply again. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Red Deer.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Resign as national organizer. That is the only way to clear your name.


Jean Marchand: You resign if you cannot prove what you say.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Oh, get up on a point of privilege, for cripes sake.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I bring to the attention of hon. members that the hon. member for Red Deer has the floor.


POSSIBLE TEMPORARY REMOVAL OF UNITED STATES IMPORT SURTAX
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the chief United States negotiator to the European Economic Community stated yesterday that approval of the devaluation of the American dollar will not be submitted to Congress until he has a satisfactory trade package agreed to by the EEC, can the minister inform the House whether deletion of the surcharge is a temporary thing and, if so, is Canada exempted from that type of arrangement?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that the surcharge has been lifted.


INCOME TAX
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Can he tell the House whether he expects to be able to announce in Parliament the date of valuation day under the terms of Bill C-259?
Hon. E. ]. Benson (Minister of Finance): Really, Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer that question. I cannot indicate when I am going to announce it.


Gerald William Baldwin: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, can the minister say whether it will be after he files his substantial amendments to the Income Tax Act next year?


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!
Inquiries of the Ministry ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


SUGGESTED LEGAL AID PROGRAM FOR THE YUKON
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact the Minister of Justice is the Attorney General of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, and as he has devised a legal aid program for the Yukon but it has not been implemented because the commissioner of that territory has not signed the agreement, I wish to ask why the commissioner has not signed the agreement, and will the minister take immediate steps to have it signed?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, we recognize a considerable amount of autonomy for the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories and the Commissioner of the Yukon, and it is up to him to decide when he wants to sign the agreement.


John Gilbert: In the meantime, will the minister direct the police officers in that area not to lay charges against Indians and Eskimos with regard to alcoholism or vagrancy so that they will not feel that discriminatory practices have been perpetrated on them by the police officers?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I might say to the hon. member that the law has to be enforced, but two years ago I gave instructions to the police in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon not to arrest for drunkenness, if possible, but to take the person concerned to his own home.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister through whom the Science Council reports to Parliament. In view of the concern expressed some weeks ago by the council about the lack of an industrial strategy in Canada, and in view of the concern indicated in a report published today, I believe based on a study conducted on behalf of the Science Council, about technology in Canada, has the minister developed a strategy in connection with the application of science to industry in Canada?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, the report that the Leader of the Opposition referred to was released this morning. I had a very preliminary look at it. I think it will make a very useful contribution in helping to answer the basic question: how can we create the conditions for the expansion and development of healthy, growing and viable industries in a world-wide trading system that is more and more dominated by multinational corporations?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the fact the minister has had the interim report of the Science Council for several weeks-I assume a man of his diligence has read it many times-can he indicate to the House when we may expect an announcement from him as to an effective and concrete approach to this problem?

December 22, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give any undertaking as to when the hon. gentleman can expect a statement to be made. My advice will be given to my cabinet colleagues.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Then it will be going down the drain.


FEASIBILITY STUDY OF USE OF NATURAL GAS TO PROPEL AUTOMOBILES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of State for Science and Technology. In view of the statement made recently by the Minister of the Environment, is the government planning to curtail propane gas sales to the United States in order to ensure a supply of clean fuel for future natural gas automobiles? If so, when can we expect an announcement of a feasibility study covering the future use of natural gas in automobiles?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think this question was asked in a slightly different form earlier this week or last week of the Minister of Transport, and he gave us an answer at that time.


REQUEST FOR REFERENCE OF SCIENCE COUNCIL STUDY TO COMMITTEE
Mr. William Knight (Assiniboia):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of State for Science and Technology. Will the minister refer the Science Council study called "The Multinational Firm, Foreign Directive Investment and Canadian Science policy", to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs at the beginning of the next session?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the committees themselves decide the proper time to do this.


EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET-ENTRY OF CANADIAN RAPESEED
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: My question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In light of the minister's recent meeting with members of the European Economic Commission, can the minister state what conclusions were drawn from his talks in relation to the acceptability of Canadian rapeseed entering the European Common Market?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to raise this question specifically with representatives of the commission but I have not yet heard what the result may be. I hope it will be favourable.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the shortage of butter in Canada to the extent that it has been necessary recently to import some eight or ten days national supply, would the minister give serious consideration to reducing the penalty of some 30 cents a pound on farm separated cream for over-quota production?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to advise that the Canadian Dairy Commission does not take any holdback directly on over-quota shipments of cream. This is done on the market share quota. This is being applied, in the case of Ontario, by the Ontario Milk Marketing Board. I recognize there is a problem, but there is also the problem of being equitable between those who have quotas and those who are shipping over the quota. We have to take both things into consideration.


PRICE PAID FOR BUTTER IMPORTED FROM UNITED STATES
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture and ask him whether or not he knows what price the Canadian government has to pay for American butter?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am not
sure, Mr. Speaker, but I could find out.


SUGGESTED YEAR-ROUND OPERATION OF MEDICAL COLLEGES TO OVERCOME SHORTAGE OF DOCTORS- POSSIBLE INCREASE IN GRANTS
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare as a followup to questions I have asked the minister on many occasions. In light of the recent statement by the Prime Minister, may I ask whether the Minister of National Health and Welfare is now prepared to give the necessary grants so that medical education can be provided on a year-round basis to help overcome the grave shortage of doctors and relieve unemployment in the student area?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated to the hon. member before, I believe, that we have some considerable sympathy for this approach.


An hon. Member:: You believe?


John Carr Munro: It is primarily an area of provincial responsibility in terms of implementing policies of this kind, and they would have to negotiate such policies with
December 22, 1971

the medical profession and the medical educators. However, we do have the health resources fund now available to the provinces in terms of capital construction for medical education facilities. This fund is available to encourage such development, but I do not know what other leverage the federal government has.


Philip Bernard Rynard: The Prime Minister has indicated that he is in favour of universities operating the year round. I am asking what grants the government is prepared to give to the universities to keep them operating?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, under post-secondary education funds we pay half the operating costs, and under the health resources fund we make moneys available for capital construction, so I do not know what other grants the hon. membea* is talking about.


Philip Bernard Rynard: A supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the hon. member for Richmond-


Philip Bernard Rynard: A supplementary question. Surely, the minister has grasped the fact that the academic year is not a calendar year.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is debate.


FINANCE
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the great concern that the Canadian dollar should not rise too much above the American dollar, is the minister looking at the James Bay project to see what effect the cost of it would have on the Canadian dollar?
Hon. E. ]. Benson (Minister of Finance): No, we are not
in this regard, Mr. Speaker, and I am pleased to note that the Canadian dollar has moved in the direction that I indicated I thought it would move.


John George Diefenbaker: That will be the first time you have been right, if you are.


Max Saltsman: Is it the intention of the Minister of Finance to discuss this matter with the appropriate officials in the province of Quebec with a view to seeing what effect it would have on the Canadian dollar?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I shall consider the hon. member's suggestion.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint ]ohn-Lancaster):: My question is for the right hon. Prime Minister and is a follow-up to
Inquiries of the Ministry
the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for F*ndy-Royal about the lay-offs at Bathurst, New Brunswick. Is the government in a position today or tomorrow to give some indication of any special plans they might have for this area? I realize there was a statement made when the meeting was held with Premier Hatfield, but is there any reason for optimism for this area before the word is out?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I shall look into this matter, Mr. Speaker.


SECRETARY OF STATE
Mr.  R. R. Southern@Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State on the very important matter I discussed with him a couple of weeks ago. In light of the signal honour which has been accorded to the Regina Junior Lions Band in that they have been invited to participate in the 83rd Tournament of Roses Parade at Pasadena, California, on January 1, can the minister say whether a reasonable grant from one of the travel programs under his jurisdiction has been made to this band in order that they may be able to avail themselves of this wonderful opportunity to help develop good international relations? If not, can the minister indicate whether-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member. This kind of question ought not to be asked at this time. If the minister can reply briefly I shall allow it, but we are trying to get through the question period and many members are seeking an opportunity to ask questions. We should try to make the questions brief and also the replies, but the minister can reply briefly.


Gérard Pelletier: As briefly as I can put it, Mr. Speaker, the project was submitted to us. It does not fit the criteria of any one of the travel programs but we are examining whether we can admit it in some other way.


POSSIBLE USE OF UNIT TRAINS TO INCREASE LOADINGS AT WEST COAST TERMINALS
Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: I should like to direct a question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the fact that maximum monthly loadings at west coast terminals have been in the neighbourhood of 28 millions bushels, and in view of the fact that commitments have been made to load some 37 million bushels in December and the indications are that commitments for January and February will be the same or even more, is the minister giving any consideration to making use of unit hopper car trains to fill the gap?

December 22, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the question of maximizing our capacity at Vancouver is receiving consideration. The peak of unloadings apparently results from ships not presenting themselves when they were scheduled. The use of unit trains would not meet this problem. The hold-up is not in the cleaning of the grain or presenting it at the terminals, but rather in the availability of berths at the moment to get the grain on the ships.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again I have to bring to the attention of hon. members that there are just a few minutes left before the end of the question period, and every supplementary asked is of course at the expense of hon. members who are awaiting the opportunity to ask questions. The hon. member for Battle River on a supplementary.


Cliff Downey: In view of the fact that when we check with the exporters they say they can predict the arrival in port of ships within minutes, could the minister in charge of the Wheat Board not attempt to get together with these people so that the public will know what is going on?


Mr. Speaker:: That is a representation, of course. The hon. member for Brant.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Is the minister prepared to say whether his department is forecasting a decline or a rise in seasonally adjusted unemployment over the next few months?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have very serious doubts about that question.


SECRETARY OF STATE
Steve Eugene Paproski: I have a question for the Secretary of State. Has the Canadian government granted moneys to former Prime Minister Lester Pearson to write his memoirs?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question could well be placed on the order paper.


Steve Eugene Paproski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, since this session has almost come to an end and questions put on the order paper may not be answered, could the Secretary of State just answer yes or no?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The rule is very simply. I suggest that that kind of question should be placed on the order paper. The rules indicate that if there is urgency

and hon. members are anxious to obtain this kind of information, they can do so by having the matter considered at the time of adjournment.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Raise it at ten o'clock.


Steve Eugene Paproski: On another point of order, Mr. Speaker, if there is to be such a grant, if the Secretary of State is giving money to former prime minister Lester Pearson for this purpose, then I suggest he should give money to two other former Prime Ministers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: Wait until next year. The present Prime Minister will then be the former prime minister.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Save some money for Pierre; as a former prime minister next year, he will need it.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. The minister has indicated to the House that he will be announcing in the House some changes to permit unemployment insurance claims to be paid more quickly. Since in some areas of Canada the service is extremely good whereas in other areas there is quite a bit of difficulty, would the minister consider reopening on a full-time basis some of the offices that were closed formerly?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We are reviewing the work load in various areas of Canada. We have opened some offices, as hon. members on both sides of the House know. In view of the representation of the hon. member, I will ask for a full report tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. John's West.


Mr. Alexander:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for St. John's West.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Can the minister say what action has been taken by his department to ensure that the instrument landing system is working at St. John's airport?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to give the answer informally, in a
December 22, 1971

sense. As far as I know at the moment, it is working satisfactorily. I will get more details.


USEFULNESS OF UNIT TRAIN IN EXPEDITING SHIPMENTS
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board and is supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Battle River. In view of the recent successful trial run utilizing the unit train and inland terminal concept for moving grain to the west coast, could the minister indicate whether this new innovation is being explored and developed and whether it conforms to the recommendations of the committee which was studying the rationalization of grain transportation and handling?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the experiment was no doubt useful for a number of reasons, but a great number of difficulties arise in trying to put any such plan into more common operation. Its more immediate usefulness will become apparent if, indeed, the cleaning facilities are beyond their capacity at either terminal, in which case we might be able to use the cleaning facilities at the inland terminals. At the moment, the cleaning facilities are not the limiting factor.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF REPORT ON RATIONALIZATION OF HANDLING AND TRANSPORTATION
Donald Frank Mazankowski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister in a position to indicate to the House when the report will be tabled regarding the study with respect to transportation and handling?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker. I cannot do that. We are planning some further discussions with the provincial authorities before making another move.


POLLUTION
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Have negotiations between Canada and the United States on the proposed clean-up of the Great Lakes reached the point where an agreement can be signed before the end of this year? If not, when is the agreement expected to be ready for signature?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer as to the date, but discussions that look toward as early as possible signing of the agreement are proceeding.
Inquiries of the Ministry FISHERIES


PHASING OUT OF OPERATIONS BY FOREIGN COUNTRIES WITHIN TWELVE MILE LIMIT AND ENCLOSED AREAS
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the steady decline in the fisheries resources off the coast of Atlantic Canada, when can we expect an announcement from the minister covering the phasing out of fishing operations within our established 12-mile limit and enclosed areas like the Gulf of St. Lawrence by such countries as Denmark, Italy, Spain, Portugal, France and the United Kingdom?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, negotiations with a number of these countries are proceeding quite successfully and I would hope that some sort of statement can be made fairly early in the new year. For example, the treaty with Denmark has been initialled ad referendum. It will be coming before the government early in the new year. Therefore I hope that some time early in 1972 we might be able to make an over-all statement.


RATIFICATION OF AGREEMENT WITH NORWAY-CONSULTATION WITH MARITIME PROVINCES-REQUESTED   TABLING OF DIPLOMATIC NOTES ON NEGOTIATIONS WITH VARIOUS COUNTRIES
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister say whether an agreement between Norway and Canada was ratified today and can he further say whether that agreement in any way reflected consultations with the Atlantic provinces?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it may be that the Norwegian government has ratified. The question of a fishing agreement has not yet come before our government for ratification, but I expect that it will be ratified almost immediately. These negotiations and the treaties that result come from very extensive study by all interests in the Atlantic area as well as, of course, the Department of Fisheries and the Department of External Affairs. I do not think there is any doubt that they are very much in Canada's interest.


John Howard Lundrigan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State for External Affairs is deliberately or otherwise misleading the House-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member please resume his seat. The hon. member cannot say that a minister or another hon. member is deliberately misleading the House. That is unparliamentary. Even if an hon. member objects to a statement, at no time is he allowed to use unparliamentary language. I have no intention whatever of allowing hon. members, even though it is close to Christmas, to use that kind of language at this time or to display this kind of attitude. It constitutes a disregard of the rules. If the hon. member wishes to ask a question which is in order I will recognize him for that purpose, but I will not recognize him for the purpose of making accusations against other hon. members.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, if the rules of the House of Commons prevent me from telling the truth, I can only say to Your Honour-

December 22, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is intelligent and should recognize that the Chair cannot allow the hon. member to say, "I will not use those words because I am not allowed to tell the truth." The hon. member knows that he cannot use that tactic.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it would be in order for the Secretary of State for External Affairs to correct the record with regard to the statement he has just made, because the agreement between Canada and Norway was ratified today. I understand that there has been a statement, which is either on record or which has come from the minister's office, indicating that Canada has agreed to permit Norway to violate the territorial seas of Canada under an official agreement. Your Honour, if members are not permitted to refer to public facts, and if ministers such as this minister who does not have a spine at all-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Howard Lundrigan: -or any backbone-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member please resume his seat.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows that he has no right to use this language. I again tell him that he must respect the rules of the House. I hesitate to use the word "rules". Let us say that he must respect the adopted and recognized customs and usages of this House. The hon. member can ask a question without going to these extremes of language and expression. I recognized him for the purpose of a supplementary question, because we had reached the end of the question period. He might ask that question and then we will call orders of the day.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, certain agreements have been arrived at between the government of Canada and various European countries, and all of them disadvantageously affect the affairs of the Atlantic region. The Secretary of State for External Affairs today indicated that there has not been any official agreement between Canada and Norway. I now ask the minister whether he will be prepared to table the diplomatic notes exchanged between Canada and Norway, Denmark, Spain, Portugal, the United Kingdom, France and Italy, to indicate the extent of the negotiations taking place with these various countries. Further, would he be prepared, Sir, in all sincerity, to discuss this matter with the premiers of the Atlantic provinces before agreements are formalized, in view of the very disadvantageous effects they may have on the Atlantic provinces?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have tabled the exchanges with Norway. I said at that time that we had not yet ratified, and I do not think we have yet.


An hon. Member:: The minister does not think!


Mitchell William Sharp: Perhaps the hon. gentleman knows better than I do, but I do not think the matter of a fishing agreement came before cabinet. As to the agreement with Denmark, it has been negotiated and signed ad referendum by officials. It will be coming before cabinet in Janu-

ary. The agreements with other countries are under discussion. We will be quite prepared to defend them against the charges of the hon. member, and I think my backbone is at least as stiff as his.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gerald William Baldwin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the House is now existing on a day to day basis, possibly the government House leader will indicate if the order of business which he announced last night will continue for this week and next week.


Edgar John Benson: And the week after.


Mr. MacEachen:: It will be the next order of business, Mr. Speaker. I am not saying the day or the week.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the hon. member for St. Paul's is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Wahn:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. With unanimous consent, could we revert to presenting reports in order to present a report from the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence?


Mr. Speaker:: This requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: There is unanimous consent.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence-Mr. Wahn.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, December 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen (for the Minister of Finance) that Bill C-261, to amend the Customs Tariff, be read the second time and referred to the committee of the whole.
Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, while an examination of this bill would seem to indicate that the
December 22, 1971

changes being made are of a minor nature and not of any great significance, I feel that Bill C-261 is important in reflecting the failure of government policy to solve the problems of Canadian productivity. Instead of doing that, the government has introduced protective measures through a customs tariff change. I wish to refer to items 93902-3, 93902-42 and 93902-82 which deal with increasing the protection on plastics. If we look at some of these items in the bill, it is quite obvious what is happening in Canada. When discussing this matter in his opening remarks, the parliamentary secretary said something about bringing these items into line with other tariff items, but the effect is to increase the protection to an industry which, if it were properly organized, would not require this protection.
If we look at item 26910-1, while it is true the tariff for that particular section of feedstocks is being somewhat reduced from its previous level, nevertheless it seems rather inconsistent and certainly strange that in a country like Canada, with extensive mineral, oil and gas deposits, we should need any kind of protection at all on feedstocks. Some important feedstocks have arrived in the country at a low rate because they are the building blocks or primary materials used in the textile industry and other industries which give us our manufacturing base. To the extent that these raw materials are more expensive than they need be, it makes it more difficult for Canada to compete in the secondary manufacturing industry. Why is this so, Mr. Speaker? Why are we in this position when we have the raw materials? There is certainly an availability of capital. If anything, there has been too much capital poured into this industry rather than too little, yet we find ourselves in the position of requiring considerable protection for the products of the industry.
We have far too many plants serving the domestic market. There is considerable evidence to indicate that this is the case. The reason is that foreign ownership of this industry has, in many ways, aborted the possibility of this industry becoming efficient. Almost every major producer in the United States has established a branch plant in Canada of less than optimum size. This has split the market so badly that none can operate on any kind of an efficient scale.
An article by W. L. Dack in the August 21 edition of the Financial Post, headed "Trouble piles up for petrochemical firms", gives an example of the situation in Canada. I quote from this article:
For instance, the latest world-scale ethylene plants being built in the U.S. have a capacity of one billion pounds a year. But the entire Canadian ethylene market, which has just about reached that level, is being served by five domestic plants. All have unit costs running an estimated 205-25 per cent higher than those from these plants.
In the case of polyvinyl chloride monomer-the base material for one of the largest plastics groups-the unit cost of the worldscale plants can drop as much as 35-40 per cent below that of the smaller units.
"It's obvious that our big expansion splurge in petrochemicals was ill-timed."-
Over the years there has been encouragement given by the Canadian government to bringing investment into Canada without any real concern or thought as to whether that investment would, in fact, benefit the country. The argument was, the more the better. While on the surface it 24725-49
Customs Tariff Amendment Act, 1971
may have appeared we were providing competition by encouraging this multiplicity of plants, that kind of competition has, in fact, been of the worst kind. It has increased our costs away beyond what they should be and has prevented this country from effectively becoming a manufacturing nation on the scale it should be.
The argument is often used that one of the difficulties with our manufacturing industries in Canada is that we do not have access to larger markets, such as the United States for example, and that the problems in the petrochemical industry are related to the access to larger markets. As the article points out and other studies indicate, the Canadian market is more than adequate to have plants of a size and scale compared to the most efficient in the world, but we cannot afford the kind of splintering of the market that has taken place as the result of the numerous foreign owned plants being established in Canada. For over two years, the government has been conducting a study of the petrochemical industry to see what can be done to rationalize the industry. To date, no report has come from the government as to the results of that study.
While this has been going on, the industry is suffering, the consumer is suffering and the Canadian economy is suffering. We think the government has been remiss in trying to cover up its absence of policy by making tariff changes. While we are not opposed to these changes being made now, because we realize the industry does require an element of protection, we would not want to see a continuation of this approach. The government should be trying to face the issue in some more fundamental way. Unless we can eventually arrive at a point at which we can abolish all tariffs and institute free trade, the unity of this country is in jeopardy. For a long time we have heard rumblings of discontent from the west, from the prairie provinces and from British Columbia, directed against the level of tariffs afforded to the manufacturing and processing industries, while western producers must sell their products on a free market without protection. The ties of confederation have been strained considerably over the years because of our failure to make Canadian industry effective to the point at which it would not require tariff protection.
Those industries which remained largely under Canadian ownership were able to effect the transition from small plants to larger and more viable units of production, and to more satisfactory forms of organization suited to the Canadian economic climate, but where industry, particularly manufacturing industry, fell under foreign ownership this process did not take place. Many of the branch plants saw their first interest in serving the parent plant, the multinational corporation, rather than trying to effect re-organization within the Canadian economy.
When we talk about the ill effects of foreign ownership, it is not an emotional thing. It is the result of an analysis of what foreign ownership has done to large segments of the Canadian economy. Instead of increasing the wealth of Canada and improving the ability of this country to compete in international markets, foreign ownership, particularly in the chemical industry, has often led to a much lower standard of living than we have reason to expect. Therefore, while we see no alternative to supporting the tariff changes proposed by the government in the face of

December 22, 1971
Customs Tariff Amendment Act, 1971
the emergency situation confronting the chemical and plastic industries, we believe it is imperative that policies be developed immediately to ensure that this kind of tariff protection is not required and that our industries will be in a position to manage on their own in a free trade world.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Penner in the chair.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay)):: I thank the committee for its warm applause.
Shall clause one carry?
On clause 1


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, a number of questions were raised last night by the hon. member for Edmonton West concerning some of the more exotic exemptions. One of the things we are getting into in a big way is the importation of exotic plants from Florida used in substitution for room dividers and in the arrangement of government offices. I note that among these plants are included palms, ferns, rubber plants, cannas, dahlias, paeonias, lilacs-


An hon. Member:: You are reading.


William Arnold Peters: Yes, and I am mispronouncing some of the names, even when reading. I am not used to speaking about exotic plants. It has been said on several occasions that in some of these cases by establishing a most favoured nation tariff we are eliminating the possibility of some of our own companies producing in this field. My question in relation to the first five items on the schedule attached to clause one is this: how do we arrive at a most favoured nation tariff in relation to these plants; what type of request is made and by whom? I presume these are items which can really be produced in hot houses in our own country.


Mr. Mahoney:: The most favoured nation status is one which is achieved by trade negotiations between Canada and other countries and involves the other countries treating Canadian imports in a favourable manner as well. The changes in the customs tariff rates themselves result from representations made by persons interested in importing these particular products.
The whole range of tariff items dealt with in this bill from 7801-1 to 7915-1 includes items which are probably in the same class. They are all horticultural products. The changes are being made because the government has acquiesced in requests made by the Canadian Horticultural Council. The hon. member for Edmonton West made several other points in his very whimsical, lighthearted and humorous speech last night. He intimated that his hon. friend from Halifax-East Hants could probably have done better. I think those of us who listened to the hon. member would be inclined to agree. Be that as it may, he held up to ridicule the various items affecting horticulture which have been proposed in this amending bill following, as I have stated, representations by the Canadian Horticultural Council. I will certainly communicate his views to the Council.
The hon. member asked what macerated paper pads were-item 19947-1. Well, these are pads made of a thick

layer of loose, ground up newsprint secured between two sheets of kraft paper, and they are used in the packaging of fruit to prevent it being bruised in transit. This particular tariff change will be of principal benefit to the fruit growers of British Columbia.
The hon. member for Waterloo also inquired why the one-third cent per gallon rate on fractions of petroleum under item 26910-1 was retained. This was the rate recommended by the tariff board. There were objections to a reduction in duty on the part of Canadian refiners. The hon. member for Edmonton West emphasized last night the importance of the petrochemical industry in a neighbouring riding to his. The refining industry is also of considerable importance in the Edmonton district and this is a factor to be borne in mind. In any case this, along with one other change in the bill, is based ori recommendations made by the tariff board which the government has accepted without change.
The hon. member for Edmonton West made considerable fun of item 40918-1, being bird scaring devices. He wondered just what the item meant. I can only say that the wording of the tariff describes the devices that will in the future be admitted duty free. The request for this change in the tariff came from the Association of British Columbia Grape Growers, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Horticultural Council, the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association and the Ontario Grape Growers Marketing Board. While the hon. member for Edmonton West was unable to take this item seriously, evidently those organizations do regard these particular devices as being of considerable importance to them in the pursuit of their agricultural vocations.
The hon. member also suggested that items 44043-1 and 44047-1 pertaining to aircraft were renewed each year. In fact, they are not renewed each year. Normally they are renewed for two or three year periods. The renewal proposed in the present bill is for three years. The Air Industries Association of Canada asked that these items be retained on a temporary basis.
Parts for the repair or remanufacture of turbines under item 44210-1 was also questioned by the hon. member for Edmonton West. These parts are presently admitted free of duty when they are used for the manufacture in Canada of turbines. Glass beads was another item the hon. member regarded as somewhat hilarious, item 698051. It is an odd coincidence, but the request for this particular tariff change was made by the office of the regional resources co-ordinator of the Human Resources Development Authority of the government of the province of Alberta. The principal beneficiary of this particular tariff change will be Indians and Eskimos for the execution of native crafts.
Metallic trading checks, item 99208-1, are subject to regulation by the Governor in Council, and the reason for this is to ensure that imports of these items will be bona fide souvenir or memorial type coins and will not be the kind of token that could be advantageously used in counterfeit fashion in vending machines.
The question of tariff board reports was also raised by the hon. member and he queried their implementation, particularly with regard to tariff item 93902-3, polyethy-
December 22, 1971

lene resin. It is anticipated that Canadian production of this commodity will increase about 8 per cent during the current year over 1970, while imports have remained at about the same level. These resins are used in the manufacture of film and sheet pipe, and numerous moulded articles, such as containers and electrical fixtures. They are also used as coatings for wire and cable.


William Arnold Peters: May I ask whether the tariff on polyethylene is up or down? There is no indication which it is here.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: This represents an increase of 21 percentage points, from the present rate of 71 per cent to 10 per cent. This is another recommendation of the tariff board. The main opposition to higher duty for this product came from producers of polyethylene film who do not produce their own polyethylene. Imports of this commodity in millions of pounds increased from 27 million pounds in 1964 to 98 million pounds in 1970, while exports decreased from 55 million pounds in 1964 to 36 million pounds in
1970.	The tariff board report indicated that polyethylene prices had declined by about 50 per cent during the decade of the 1960's, and recent data indicate this trend is continuing. I might point out that United States duty on the same material was 1.6 cents per pound plus 12 per cent in 1971. The European Common Market imposes a 16 per cent duty, which will be reduced to 10 per cent in the future.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary secretary has mentioned that European Common Market countries enjoy a lower rate than the 20 per cent in our general tariff. Is the 10 per cent rate available only to those who conclude a tariff agreement with us, and in the absence of such a tariff agreement do we revert to the general tariff? In other words, if we imported this material from one of the European Common Market countries, would the rate be 12 per cent-or whatever the figure is-as opposed to the 20 per cent rate in the general tariff?


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that the general tariff rate is not of any practical application here, and that for all practical purposes imports of this product come from countries to which the most favoured nation tariff applies. All of the European Common Market countries qualify under the most favoured nation tariff rather than under the general tariff.
One other question that was raised last night by the hon. member for Timiskaming was the length of time it is open to an importer to claim a drawback. I am advised that drawbacks may be claimed at any time up to three years after the date of importation.
I think I have responded to all of the questions posed up to this point, Mr. Chairman.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, we are importing a number of items connected with medicines, insecticides and pesticides.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I see the Acting Chairman is leaving the chair, so may I just say that he has done an admirable job. I know the rump is a considerable distance from the end of this chamber, but I am sure that over the
24725-49}
Customs Tariff Amendment Act, 1971
next day or two Liberal members will have an opportunity to get together and make each other's acquaintance.
In referring to the biological products and toxoids found under items 2605-1 and 20610-1, I find that this has been a major problem over the last few years. Certainly it was a major problem in Canada when we introduced legislation to further restrict the number of commodities used as insecticides and pesticides. We were made aware of the fact that many new commodities were available in the United States and in other countries, and that on occasion these were allowed to be imported into Canada in conflict with the restrictions that we have on other products. Some of these commodities are obviously experimental in nature and, I presume, are restricted. However, the people affected are a fairly complex group who are operating almost independently, both in universities and in the research field, and who are fairly remote from the regulations which we make governing, industrial production of the same commodities or of commodities using the same components. I might say that I am reluctant to admit that I do not know how extensive the negotiations are regarding these commodities, but I gather that when we lower the tariff this is done for reasons other than the normal requests sometimes made by individuals who will apply for a permit for a specific commodity. There must be a fairly extensive importation or there would not be a request for this kind of exemption.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Actually, these two items represent no change in the tariff. They represent a consolidation of previous items. Item 20605-1 brings in an item which used to be 20606-1. They simply represent a consolidation which provides free entry of biological products used to diagnose or treat diseases of man and free entry for the same products used to prevent those diseases. The question of whether they are acceptable for human use in Canada is of course under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare and import permits would be required, but those are not related to the Tariff Act. Similarly, on 20610-1 we have a consolidation of two previous items, one dealing with biological products used to diagnose or treat diseases of animals or poultry and the second one for the importation of the same products used to prevent disease. Here again the Health of Animals Division of the Department of Agriculture is concerned with the safety and acceptability of the product, and permits from them would be required in cases where the item is not itself prescribed as being for use in Canada. But that is not something that the Tariff Act tries to control. All of these deal with items that are permitted free entry.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, I did not take part in the discussion at the second reading stage of this bill, but I have some questions which I would like to put to the parliamentary secretary in relation to the terms of Schedule "A", item 41100-1 and 41105-1. Item 41100-1 has two parts. The first refers to machines for sawing lumber, up to but not including the operation of planing, and parts thereof, not including equipment for driving the machinery of the saw mill when used exclusively in saw mills.

December 22, 1971
Customs Tariff Amendment Act, 1971
The next paragraph deals with machines and parts thereof, for use exclusively in logging, such operation to include the removal of the log from stump to skidway, log dump, or common or other carrier. This proviso, which I understand is a new provision in this bill, removes these items from the application of the tariffs listed in the case of importation into Canada of any goods enumerated if the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, considers that it is in the public interest and that the goods are not available from production in Canada by allowing a remission of the duty specified in the item.
I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary why in the existing tariff structure there is an exception in regard to the machinery used in the operation of planing. Also, why is it that no provision is made in this excepting proviso as proposed in the bill for machinery and equipment used in plywood manufacturing plants and particularly particle board plants, all of which are in the nature of an alternative use of the basic forestry products and in many cases, certainly in the coastal area of British Columbia and indeed throughout British Columbia and in some other parts of Canada, are part of an integrated forestry products complex. Why is it that while there is provision for exemption from duty for saw mill and logging equipment, no equivalent provision is made for machinery used in these other forms of converting plants, ones such as I have mentioned, plywood plants and particle board plants?


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: The types of products to which the hon. member is referring are subject to tariff items 42700. They are treated in the same way under that item as is proposed for logging equipment under this item. I might say that the combined coverage of the two items 41100-1 and 41105-1 is essentially the same as the two tariff items they replace, and the rates of duty are also the same as previously. The main purpose of the amendment is to provide for remission of duty on the same basis as under the existing machinery tariff remission program on logging and saw mill machinery which is not available from production in Canada. The new item 41100 covers the machinery, including cranes, for which duty remission may be considered. The other item covers trucks and non-mechanical logging equipment which is not covered by the remission program and will continue to be dutiable at 10 per cent British preferential and 12.5 per cent most favoured nation. Logging trucks are already covered by remission programs established for the automotive industry. I might say that these amendments constitute one of the measures proposed in the budget to assist the forestry products industry whose exports and profits have declined in the past year due in part to the unpegging of the Canadian dollar.
Other measures which will be of assistance to the industry include the progressive reduction of the corporate income tax rate from 50 per cent to 46 per cent as provided in Bill C-259, the removal of the sales tax on anti-pollution equipment as provided in Bill C-260 and the temporary duty on heavy fuel oil as provided under tariff 2906-1 of this bill.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I should like to be sure I correctly understood what the parliamentary secretary was telling me. Under the existing tariff law, in another section which is not in this bill, provision is already there for remission of duty on machinery and equipment for plywood plants.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Yes, Mr. Chairman. This complements the existing machinery tariff remission program for goods classified under customs tariff 42700-1. The majority of equipment used in the forest products industry is covered by that latter item and is already subject to remission. This brings additional equipment into the remission category.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I thank the parliamentary secretary for that explanation. I am still a little bit puzzled about the situation in respect of logging trucks because as I read customs tariff 41100-1 it refers to machines and parts thereof used in the operation of logging from the stump to the log dump. Now, as I understand the parlance commonly used in a logging operation, certainly on the Pacific coast, the logging dump means the place where the logs are dumped into the water from a logging truck. This is why I am a little puzzled by some of the remarks of the parliamentary secretary about logging trucks being covered under the arrangements in respect of automobiles generally.
I am also a little puzzled concerning what is meant in the new part of 41105-1 in reference to self-propelled trucks. I have discussed this with some people actively associated with the industry and have discovered there is some confusion in their minds concerning just how this will work out in practice, particularly in the area with which I am most familiar. I should tell the parliamentary secretary, if it is not already obvious to him, that I do not consider myself an authority on the tariff law. However, I believe it is important to a good many people in the area I represent that we have a clear understanding of exactly how this will apply, at least in respect of the practise of the industry on the Pacific coast.
I was aware of the other items in the budget proposal to which the parliamentary secretary referred, and I recall the minister announcing them as sort of a package with relationship to the unpegging of the dollar. But it would be unfortunate if there were any confusion concerning the intent of this when it comes to a point of decision in respect of the importation of equipment not available to the industry from Canadian manufacturing sources.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, the intent of these changes is to try to cover in the forest products industry the same kind of equipment and machinery that comes in under the machinery program. I would refer the hon. member to Order in Council 1971/140 dated January 26,1971 which is entitled "Order respecting the remission of customs duty on off-highway vehicles, parts and accessories and parts thereof". That is the Order in Council which covers the logging trucks and so on.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, there is one other question I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary if he has the information available. This arises from the fact that we have a parallel industry on the Pacific coast for forest products north and south of the 49th parallel. I should like

December 22, 1971

to know whether or not there are any parallel arrangements in respect of exports to the United States of various kinds of specialized logging or sawmill equipment or machinery which may be manufactured in Canada by Canadian manufacturers. Assuming that some of this equipment would be coming from manufacturers in the United States, is there a quid pro quo so far as specialized items of Canadian manufacture are concerned.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I do not have the United States law on this subject at my fingertips. I will certainly inquire into it and give the hon. member an answer concerning the current situation. I am afraid I cannot answer the question at the present time.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I shall be glad to have that information from the parliamentary secretary, Mr. Chairman.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with great interest to the remarks that have been made on this particular item affecting equipment used in the forest products industry. I should like to know two things. First, what have we done in terms of percentage. What was it before? Then, I should like to know if Germany, for instance, the source of a large percentage of the sawmill equipment as well as plywood equipment and so on, is under the preferred tariff and how much of a saving this is. Second, I should like to know how the manufacturers go about making a claim for drawback on items of machinery purchased within the last three-year period.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Well, Mr. Chairman, this, of course, is a remission item so the saving is exactly the percentage of tariff applicable, which in the case of Germany as a most favoured nation would be a saving of 121 per cent. Remissions are granted upon the importer establishing that a suitable product of Canadian manufacture is not available. So, the application must be accompanied by evidence that the product could not be obtained domestically. Once that is established, the remission amounts to the full amount of duty which would have been imposed which depends on the country of origin.


William Arnold Peters: Is the parliamentary secretary indicating that for a preferred nation there would be a 121 per cent remission of tariff that had been paid? Is this not the amount which still has to be paid? If you were importing now, you would have to pay the 121 per cent tariff on this if it were in the preferred class or 10 per cent if it were in the British preferential tariff. I do not gather that these are all reductions of that amount but are reductions to that amount.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, this tariff item does not change the rates. The rates are the same. The amendment here simply provides for a remission which did not previously exist.


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Shall clause 1 carry?


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make an inquiry about item 47825-1 which includes wheelchairs, walkers and other aids to locomotion. I have received a number of complaints concerning the importation from Switzerland of a mobile wheel chair for invalids of a type that is not
Customs Tariff Amendment Act, 1971
manufactured anywhere else, but the argument used by the department is that because there are other products available that will assist locomotion, the customs tariff must apply to this import. What is the reason for this? Very few of these wheelchairs will be imported from Switzerland. They are expensive. Why should this stipulation "of a class or kind made in Canada" apply in this case?
It seems to me that we should be prepared to remove this restriction. Because of disability, a person may find that this type of wheelchair suits him better than any other type. I understand the cost of such a wheel chair is $1,200 in Switzerland, and a 15 per cent tariff on top of that is a considerable amount of money. I note that there is no tariff applicable to hearing aids and parts for their repair. I believe the same situation should apply to invalid chairs.
I took up this matter with the officials and they were sympathetic, but they told me their hands were tied by this restriction concerning a class or kind made in Canada. The individual involved told me that he had discovered no suitable wheelchair for his use in Canada, that there were automatic wheelchairs and electric wheelchairs available in Canada but not of the type that he could operate. He had been to Switzerland and discovered a type there that suited him, but he was not able to import it because of the excessive cost to him that the 15 per cent tariff represented. I am sure that such cases seldom come to the attention of the department. Because of the nature of this item, because it has a personal application, there should be an exemption for it. But again this restricting phrase "of a class or kind made in Canada" governs the situation.
I can draw an analogy between this and an operation in a sawmill where people using milling machines are working with chip board. For the plastic veneer that they use in my area they tell me that the only suitable product comes from Germany. They laminate the chip board with it. There is another type of veneer manufactured in the United States, and several other kinds are manufactured in Canada, but there is a considerable difference in the type of product they can turn out using the stuff that they import from Germany. In a non-technical sense, these veneers look very much the same but they do not all perform the same function.
In the 14 years that I have been a member of this House, only one person has approached me seeking a concession with respect to tariff on an invalid chair. I am sure not more than 200 or 300 people throughout the country would be involved in this situation, and a concession should be made.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, the question of a wheel chair, and so on, is one that I know would be of considerable personal significance to anyone who had to use one on a regular basis. I am sure there is a tendency to find a favourite brand and stick with it, even though this might get a person in trouble with the "class or kind" provision in the tariff item. Representations on matters of this nature would certainly be most sympathetically heard by the tax policy division of the Department of Finance, which is the appropriate body to approach initially for changes of this nature. The Department of National Reve-

December 22, 1971
Customs Tariff Amendment Act, 1971
nue, of course, has no alternative but to administer the act as Parliament delivers it.
The imports in this case are not insignificant, as a matter of fact. Imports of these two tariff items, wheel chairs and so on, were almost $500,000 in 1970. Further, there is a fairly considerable industry in Canada.
On the hearing aid item, Mr. Chairman, hearing aids themselves are duty free, and the item here is to extend duty free entry to repair parts, something which has not heretofore existed. Components, and so on, of hearing aids assembled in Canada initially are free. This is to make sure that the duty free status applies to all the requirements of persons using hearing aids.


Gérald Laniel: Is the committee ready for the question?


William Arnold Peters: I would like to deal with one more item, No. 69200-1 which covers coins or medals for collections. What sort of arrangement do we have with countries around the world that allows us to import these tariff free? I gather from the parliamentary secretary that this is an indication that most other countries have agreed to the same arrangement. The item does not stipulate that a person must be classed as a collector. He could be a purchaser of antiques or of trophies, anything of that nature. What kind of arrangements have been made through negotiations in order to allow entry of these items duty free? I see that this also applies to sculptures, statuary and paintings, if they are worth over $75, and to the production of Canadian artists domiciled abroad who wish to bring back their own works. I am curious to know the rationale for providing this particular exemption, and if it is duplicated in other countries. Is it a fairly general arrangement?


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: It is not necessarily a reciprocal arrangement. It is quite possible that other countries do admit such items duty free. The rationale for it is that the items mentioned are the sort of thing considered to be of cultural or artistic value. If the hon. member examines the existing customs tariff he will note that it refers to collections of coins and/or medals. The Department of National Revenue interpreted that to mean that there must be at least two coins or medals, and the amendment is simply to make sure that it will be interpreted that an individual coin or medal could be imported duty free under the same item. The rationale is simply one of culture and of artistic appreciation. I do not know of any reciprocal arrangements.


William Arnold Peters: One last question which affects the whole problem of polyethylene products. In our most favoured nation category I see there is a difference in the percentage between the two types. One is moulding and the other one, I suppose, is sheet material. Is an effort being made in this field to protect or to expand our industry which is a fairly new and growing one?


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member will note that in item 93902-3, which covers the resin, we are dealing with the raw material itself. Under the new amendment, that will have a 10 per cent duty. Then, we go to moulding compounds, item 93902-42 which in addition

to the resin have fillers or colours or some other materials added, and are partially manufactured, so you get to the 121 per cent level. Again on 93902-82 where you get the polyethylene film and sheet, you are into a fully manufactured item and arrive at a tariff rate of 171 per cent under the new regime.


William Arnold Peters: It should also be pointed out that there are very large increases in the figures for imports given by the parliamentary secretary, from 27 million in 1964 to 98 million. While I am not in favour of increasing the others, Mr. Chairman, I might be in favour of increasing this particular item. Obviously, the 7 i per cent was not curtailing imports and yet our consumption in this country must be in the hundreds of millions. Raising it 2 i per cent may not accomplish what we would like in this field. This is one case where it might be advisable to increase it perhaps 5 per cent in light of the picture since 1964.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The figures I gave the hon. member, of course, were pounds of material rather than dollars. I would not want to leave the wrong impression. For example, in 1970 imports of polyethylene resin were $11.3 million. To illustrate the success of the progressive rate, by the time we get to the second item, moulding compounds, imports are down to $1.9 million.


Gérald Laniel: Is the committee ready for the question?


William Arnold Peters: If I could just ask, Mr. Chairman, whether it is possible to move for an increase in this table. I would be prepared to move a motion to increase the percentage by an additional 2} per cent, as I think this is an industry that can be, and obviously is being, developed in Canada and which warrants extra support. I presume that if I do move such an amendment it will not throw out the balance of ways and means but it might throw out the negotiations. I hesitate to raise the question because I doubt whether it would be feasible.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, before the hon. member puts you on the spot or goes to the trouble of drafting his motion, I might point out to him that the rates provided in this amendment are the maximum allowed under GATT. Any increase, in addition to having the Chair and the Committee accept an amendment, would involve the hon. member renegotiating the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.


William Arnold Peters: Not before Christmas, Mr. Chairman.


Gérald Laniel: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 1 carry?
Clause 1 agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 2 carry?
On clause 2-Schedule B amended.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the parliamentary secretary can satisfy my curiosity about why fire brick is subject to drawback if it is used in the construction of coke ovens but apparently not for other purposes.
December 22, 1971

If I want fire brick in a fireplace it is not subject to drawback but if I want to make a coke oven, it is. Is there any reason for this? We have been discussing the question of tile made in Canada. Are we not in a position to produce fire brick for coke ovens in Canada?


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, the item here is brick for coke ovens which is of course for use basically in a manufacturing process. So, consistent with the policy under the Tariff Act, where a product is used for manufacturing purposes or processing the tariff is minimized.
Just slightly out of order, Mr. Speaker, but in regard to an earlier question that the hon. member asked about the United States tariff rates on logging equipment, I might say that the current range of United States tariff on importation of logging and sawmill machinery is 6 per cent to 9 per cent and under the implementation of the Kennedy Round on January 1, it will be reduced to a range of 5 per cent to 7 per cent.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 2 carry?
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
Schedules A, B and C agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
'
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


An hon. Member:: By leave, now.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: that Bill C-261, to amend the customs tariff be read the third time and do pass.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I wish to convey my appreciation to the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) for his participation in the debate on this bill. I wish to speak about certain changes that take place from time to time in the customs tariff. These changes are negotiated with other countries and when they are brought before Parliament they are fait accompli; there is no opportunity to change them. Under our present method of operating, changes to those agreements would involve changes to Ways and Means resolutions. It seems to me that hon. members should be in a better position, in cases where these negotiations have taken place, to bring about changes that, in their opinion, are advantageous or desirable in certain fields.
When on former occasions I have suggested that some items ought to be exempt, those exemptions were not granted. Several years later exactly the same kind of exemption as I suggested has been granted, often for the very same kind of product I had in mind. When I made my suggestion, there was no way of implementing it. The difficulty regarding our representations stems from the fact that we are remote from negotiations in which Canada discusses tariff changes say, under GATT, or the most favoured nation tariff. It seems to me that we need to learn something of what goes on in these discussions. At present, we must accept the entire change, or reject it. It is a case of all or nothing, and this leads to frustration.
Income Tax Amendment Law Act, 1971
However, I wish to congratulate the parliamentary secretary and the officials assisting him for the splendid job that was done in answering questions that I and other hon. members asked.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



INCOME TAX LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1971

Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: that Bill C-275, to amend the statute relating to income tax, be read the second time and referred to the committee of the whole.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to implement the following measures announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) in his statement to the House of Commons on October 14, 1971: the 7 per cent reduction in corporate income tax; the 3 per cent reduction in individual income tax; and the training on the job program.
The 7 per cent corporate tax reduction and the 3 per cent individual tax reduction will be in effect for the 18 months from July 1, 1971, to December 31, 1972. The training on the job program applies to salaries and wages earned on or after November 1, 1971. The 7 per cent corporate tax reduction has been designed to give Canadian firms greater flexibility in responding to the special difficulties that have confronted them in recent months, and to give them confidence to create sustained growth and job opportunities. It should also aid our corporations in remaining competitive in both domestic and international markets.
The 3 per cent individual tax reduction will also provide an important stimulus to the private sector for sustaining and encouraging increased demand for goods and services. The training on the job program will provide an opportunity for many of our unemployed to acquire more solid skills. That should enable them to take advantage of new employment opportunities. The program should also be of great assistance to employers in preparing for future economic expansion.
The information which has come to hand since the statement that was made in the House on October 14 confirms the growing strength of the Canadian economy. In four consecutive quarters the real value of goods and services produced by Canadians has increased at an annual rate of at least 6 per cent. This rate is substantially in excess of that applying to our long term trend.
The tax reductions proposed in this bill will make an important contribution to this forward thrust of the economy, and that announcement no doubt has already tended to benefit the economy. Their enactment will ensure that the full effect of the tax reductions will be realized in due course, and will result in higher demand, a higher level of investment and a higher level of employment.
The estimated cost of the programs for 1971-1972 is as follows. The cost with regard to the 7 per cent corporate reductions will be, according to estimates, $160 million, of

December 22, 1971
Income Tax Law Amendment Act, 1971
which this bill covers $75 million; for the 3 per cent individual reduction it will be $125 million, of which this bill covers $80 million, and for the training on the job program, $20 million. For the 1972-73 year it is estimated that the corporate reduction will amount to $175 million; the 3 per cent individual reduction will amount to $225 million, and we have no estimate of the exact cost that will be incurred as a result of the enactment of the training on the job program. The costs of the tax reductions covered in this bill are less than those that were quoted on October 14, 1971, since this bill implements the 7 per cent corporate reduction and the 3 per cent individual reduction for 1971 only. Hon. members will appreciate that the 1972 reductions will be incorporated in a later bill which, presumably, will amend our old friend Bill C-259, when that becomes law.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, getting back to one of these income tax debates is like Alice falling down the rabbit hole a second time and discovering all the strange and interesting characters of Wonderland all over again. I will try to cope with this bill as best I can, although I see that the wonderful, wild and woolly characters which have helped the corporations in the past have been at it again in section 5 of this particular measure. Here we have definitions, and definitions within definitions. This is a very attractive area for someone who is interested in semantics. Perhaps we can get down to the fiscal message.
The parliamentary secretary has obviously followed the example of his boss and has become budget happy. His boss has given us three budgets within the year and the parliamentary secretary has brought before us a minibudget. We also have heard the announcement that this legislation will not apply to 1972 or 1973, something I suspected after looking at the provisions of Bill C-259. It has no saw-off point. It is only concerned with the 1971 taxation year. Obviously, further measures are necessary.
In a technical sense, I should point out to the parliamentary secretary that the notice of ways and means is an offensive motion in the sense that it covers much more than is contained in the measure we are now considering; not less, but more. The first paragraph, paragraph (1), of the December 17 issue of Votes and Proceedings refers to the 1972 and 1973 taxation years. I raise that point as a purist and do not found any substantial objections on it. It is an example of what can happen when legislative purity is cast aside when dealing with income tax legislation.
The parliamentary secretary indicated certain moneys would be pumped back into the economy as a result of the reductions set forth in this particular measure so that the research staffs will have something to do over whatever little holiday we allow ourselves. The research staff of the official opposition has calculated that the savings from these taxes will be in the order of $125 million on personal income taxes, substantially higher than the parliamentary secretary indicated, and $160 million on corporation taxes for a total of $285 million. This is in advance of the figures quoted by the parliamentary secretary. That is merely an indication of the magnitude of the savings, as determined by our own people.

If the government wanted to pump more money into the economy as a means of overcoming the economic problems being experienced in Canada, it might have paid more heed to one particular area where money available to consumers is used, that is a reduction in the sales and excises taxes. Instead of simply making cuts for the year from personal and corporational income taxes, more would have been achieved if sales and excise taxes could have been reduced. The consumer, particularly the person with a low income, is going to be spending all his money anyway. He is pledged right to the hilt. There is little ability to save when your income is moderate. As was pointed out in the discussion of Bill C-259, that group is always overtaxed. I will not go into that argument again, but in that debate I made the point that the burden of taxation was apt to be in the proportion of 53 to 37, depending on whether you were in the very low or high income bracket. The very poor Canadian shoulders a tax burden in relation to his means of about 50 per cent more than the person in the category of those of us who sit in Parliament.
Some stimulation to the economy might have occurred if the minister had listened to a message we have given over and over again, that is to do something about the tax on building materials.
In dealing with burdens that fall in various areas of the economy, it should be noted that for 1971, of the total income raised by government, personal income tax accounted for 37 per cent or three cents out of every eight raised for the operation of the federal government and corporation income tax bore approximately 17 per cent of the tax burden this year. If the minister was going to go the route of income tax reductions, it might have been wiser to give slightly more in the personal income tax field. I give the parliamentary secretary notice of a technical question I will be raising later. I presume this act will automatically terminate because it only comes into effect for the 1971 taxation-year which is almost over. Perhaps we could have a technical explanation of that so there will not be any difficulties among those who read these acts and wonder what we are doing here.
On behalf of my colleagues and myself, I welcome the provisions relating to the manpower training program set forth in wonderful definitions and subdefinitions in paragraph 5. I pity the poor devil who drafted this bill. It is a complicated task to deal with the taxation law in a very complicated era. While I might chuckle at the drafting of this bill, I think this is important and accordingly welcome.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing like a tax measure to reveal the true nature of a political party. The one before us is a wonderful revelation of the true soul of Canada's Liberal party. That party likes to proclaim that all Canadians are the same. They say there are not rich Canadians, nor average Canadians, nor poor Canadians. We are all really the same. That party says it is interested in employees, but invariably acts in the interest of capital.
As the parliamentary secretary stated, the tax bill we are now considering was first announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) in October. I remind hon. members that this proposal was intended to provide stimula-
December 22, 1971

tion for the Canadian economy and to redress the effects of previous stupid economic policies of the Liberal government, economic policies which have resulted in the highest level of unemployment in this country in a decade.
The proposals before us confirm a recent judgment of the Minister of Finance. I will not reveal its source. It is as follows: "The Minister of Finance is the only man in Canada who has never wavered in his conviction that the rich should be made richer and the poor made poorer."


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member may have noted the publication from which he was quoting, but I missed it. I would appreciate if he would advise from what document he was quoting.


John Edward Broadbent: The document happens to be my notes. The source from which I got the quotation to put in my notes eludes me at this moment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Perhaps it is The Machinist. The NDP research office.


John Edward Broadbent: As a student of philosophy, I have always taken the view on epistomological questions that in terms of truth or falsity the source of a judgment is not important. What is important, and this is what I stress about the quotation is whether or not it is accurate.


An hon. Member:: Get on with it.


John Edward Broadbent: Perhaps I should read it to the hon. member in case the parliamentary secretary missed it. "The Minister of Finance is the only man in Canada, who has never wavered in his conviction that the rich should be made richer and the poor made poorer". I would be glad to send that over to the parliamentary secretary. I believe one of the brighter members opposite wishes to ask a question.


Mr. Gibson:: The minister of finance of what province?


Mr. Osier:: My question is this. Since we are getting such pearls of wisdom from the pen of this unnamed author, could we not be given the benefit of further pearls of wisdom from the same source? Perhaps we could put the whole thing into a book, edited by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). Then we might have a book we could sell for charitable purposes, possibly to help widows of Members of Parliament. There have been several examples of successful anonymous authorship in the past. I did not know we were allowed to quote anonymous authors here. But if we do so, we might do so for the benefit of some worthy cause.


John Edward Broadbent: I would be glad to have my speech bound and well illustrated with large print so that the hon. member can comprehend it.
The rest of my speech, if I can get on with it, is intended to show that the present measure is something which only the Liberal party could achieve, a bill which is both unjust and ineffective at the same time. Let me deal with the two most important sections. The first concerns a reduction in income tax by 3 per cent. Let us consider some of the
Income Tax Law Amendment Act, 1971
people who will be affected at various income levels. Note with what great generosity the government has treated poor people in Canada. A Canadian worker with a wife and two children earning $4,000 a year will save the grand total of $1.09. That will inject a lot of money into the economy. If a man is earning $5,000 and has two dependents, he will save $4.53. At $6,000 he will receive $8.30; at $7,000, $12.24 and at $9,000, $20.55.
Now, these people are consumers. We are talking about injecting money into the economy. We are talking about increasing demand in order to provide more jobs. It is precisely this category of persons about whom we should be most concerned when we are providing additional spending money. I am thinking of the great bulk of Canadians who earn between $4,000 and $9,000. And it is precisely this group who are getting almost nothing from the bill. However, if you are struggling to get by on $30,000, this across-the-board reduction will net you $152.34, and if you should be eking out an existence on a mere $100,000 you will save $757.70.
The point is clear. In this country, the richer you are the more deeply indebted to the Liberal party you should be, because you will benefit more from tax measures of this kind. It is altogether unjust to apply a 3 per cent tax reduction across-the-board, because it saves the millionaire much more than it saves the poor man.
But leaving equity aside and dealing only with other economic considerations, let us remember that the bill was brought in, according to the Minister of Finance, to stimulate the economy. Who is getting the big share of the money? Is it those who will be spending most of their income or is it those in the upper income group? It is those in the upper income group, precisely the people who, when they get the benefit of their tax reduction, will not go out and spend it. They will not inject money right away into the economy by purchasing more goods and thus helping to create more jobs; they will use this saving of, for example, over $700 for the very rich, for investment purposes. It comes as a wonderful windfall for the rich to get more money to invest and ensure more profits at a later date. The economy is not stimulated at all in the initial period. No increase in consumer demand of any significance is forthcoming from the kind of across-the-board reduction for which the government has provided.
There are, in our view, two alternative approaches which could have been taken. If we were really interested in stimulating a marked early increase in demand we might have provided for a 5 per cent reduction affecting only those with incomes of $9,000 and less. It is these people who spend virtually all their income as they take it in. Another approach would have been to use the money the government proposes to allow the corporations under this bill, $160 million for the fiscal year 1971-72, and give it to everyone in the income bracket between $4,000 and $7,000 by way of a complete tax write-off. I have calculated that this would have required about $108 million for 1971-72. Subtract this sum from the $160 million the government plans to concede to the corporations, and one winds up with a surplus of $52 million for which the government could find some other useful purpose. This would have been effective and meaningful in alleviating poverty. Most families in Canada living on less than $7,000 a year are living in poverty and this would have been very
10722

December 22, 1971
Income Tax Law Amendment Act, 1971
effective for them. At the same time it would have provided a needed stimulus to the economy of the country. It would have been a meaningful method of taxation though it would not be consistent, of course, with the prevailing philosophy of the Liberal party, which is to give disproportionate gains to those in the upper income brackets.
I should like to turn to the second category of "reform," the last word being in quotation marks. I refer to the 7 per cent reduction in corporate taxes. This is even more scandalous, if that is possible, than the across the board 3 per cent reduction in income tax. I wish the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans) were in his seat because he made a very fine speech in the House last week, one which, in substance, has been made by members of this party for the past two or three years. It seems that when sinners repent their speeches gets much more attention than when they are made by other people for a number of years.
The 7 per cent reduction in corporate tax is simply a windfall profit for corporations in Canada and has absolutely no connection with increasing the number of jobs for Canadians, which is the stated purpose of this reduction. I should like to know whether the government asked itself if it should provide tax reductions only for those firms that are labour-intensive as opposed to those that are capital-intensive. I would ask the parliamentary secretary whether he thinks that this tax reduction of 7 per cent given to the oil industry of Alberta, an industry that is capital-intensive and which employs very few Canadians, is going to result in any increase in jobs.
The answer to that rhetorical question is obviously no, and it is also no if the same question is asked in relation to many other sectors of the economy. If we are to use a reduction in corporate taxes as an exclusive means of stimulating the economy by increasing employment opportunities, then as anyone with a brain in his head knows you have to distinguish between labour-intensive and capital-intensive industries. It is just that kind of distinction that the government refuses to make.
Quite apart from that distinction, one would have thought that instead of just giving hundreds of millions of dollars to Canadian corporations we would also have included in this particular tax measure the requirement that before these corporations receive a tax benefit of 7 per cent they should be able to show, firstly, that they have expanded their industry by a certain percentage within a given period, and secondly, that such expansion had resulted in the creation of additional jobs. After all, this is what the bill is supposed to be about. It is not supposed to be a bill that simply gives money to corporations; the stated purpose of the bill, as announced by the Minister of Finance in October was to stimulate the economy. Why then does the government not tie tax benefits to action that increases employment? No such provision is contained in this bill.
Once again we are simply squandering public money. As far as the corporate sector of the economy is concerned, we are giving away $160 million in the fiscal year 1971-72. The Liberal party of Canada, as the hon. member for Duvernay eloquently and very adequately documented last week, has been responsible for selling out a good

part of the Canadian economy during the past decade. In addition to selling out the economy, the government is selling out to existing corporate owners, whether foreign or domestic, the real financial possibilities that will eliminate the prospect of hundreds of thousands of Canadians ever rising above the poverty level. It would have made much more sense, as I said a minute ago, for the government to have given this $160 million to all taxpayers within the $4,000 to $7,000 income brackets. That at least would have taken a lot of the people off the poverty line. There is no guarantee whatsoever that the corporate sector of the economy will provide more jobs as a result of this particular tax proposal.
I shall not take more any more of the time of the House and want to conclude by briefly summarizing my two points. The claim is made that this reduction of personal income tax in the amount of 3 per cent is both just and provides a stimulus to the economy. In fact, it does neither. Secondly, it is alleged that the 7 per cent across the board corporate tax reduction will provide needed stimulus of the economy and more jobs for Canadians. I suggest it will not do either of these things. In short, my view and the view of the New Democratic Party is that the bill fails to do what it is intended to do. All it achieves is the perpetuation, indeed the aggravation, of existing inequalities.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I rise with some apology to my colleagues to my extreme left who obviously want to extend the debate on Bill C-275. I must say that having listened to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) I am hesitant to make any remarks since I am sure he is talking about a different bill from the one before me. I must say as a compliment to him that I have never heard any member stand on his feet for so long to say so little, but with obviously so much dedication to his point of view. I say that to him in the full meaning of the Christmas spirit. I was hoping that my good friend, my esteemed colleague from Saskatoon who is in charge of the Wheat Board and who also represents the unemployed of Canada, would make a few remarks on this bill because I am sure there are many points of view he would like to expound upon in connection with the manpower training program.
I want to point out to the House that this bill enables us to speak about the manpower training program, since from clause 5 on it relates directly to that program. A few days ago the minister issued a press release to the Canadian people on the benevolent results achieved by the manpower training program during the last year. I remember pondering for hours the results of the program and thinking back to my former days as a student when I did a little bit of research. I found it absolutely impossible to draw the same conclusions as the minister did on the basis of my research evidence. But, of course, I do not have the capabilities of the minister and I am not as good at figure skating or stick handling or any of the other acrobatic skills which go with being a minister in the present cabinet. So immediately I put aside my apprehension and deliberately avoided trying to make further comments on these programs to which he was referring.

In this bill we are involved with legalizing the agreement to enable industry to take advantage of a particular program initiated by this government. I am very interested in manpower training and in anything to do with human resource development. I have always been of the opinion that Canada must become involved to a greater extent in the development of the human resources of this nation. I think we are the only major nation in the world which is not involved, through some government department or some form of program, in manpower training. Our neighbours to the south have an office of education. To my knowledge every European country but one has national offices of education, national offices of manpower training and national offices of human resource development.
I do not have the exact information at my fingertips, but in Canada we have 15 or 20 types of programs in which the federal government is involved in one way or another to develop our human resources and our manpower potential. I am always amazed that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)-I am sure that my noble colleague who will rise to speak when I complete my remarks in a minute will elaborate on this-is so defensive when questions are put to him regarding the need for Canada to become more actively involved in education in co-operation with the provinces. I hope that one day-and this is a personal expression of opinion on my part-Canada will have a national office of manpower development or human resource development, or education so that there might be co-ordinated effort of the provinces together with the federal government with regard to training and education. Today, any politician who brings his family to Ottawa, or anyone who has had the experience of engaging in the mobility of the 1970's, must realize that there is a great need for a co-ordinated effort among the provinces in the field of education. Perhaps my comments are a little more general than the bill entitles me to be, but this is a point that must be developed. I hope that in the not too distant future the provinces can get together with the federal government to develop some kind of major strategy for the development of our human resources, our most valuable resource in Canada.
The bill before us deals with incentives to industry to assist people to acquire particular skills. Two methods are outlined in the bill. One of them is the direct payment method of manpower training under which the federal government will make direct payments to industry to help an individual to acquire a particular skill or trade. This is an industry program. The other method will involve the government in giving a tax incentive to the industries. It is referred to in the bill as the manpower training program tax incentive method. The government will give an incentive to industries to assist people to acquire new skills. What it means is that the federal government will make a partial contribution to the training of an individual. It also encourages the industry to train that individual. The federal government will grant a 60 per cent write-off of the cost to the individual or the company involved if they take part in the program.
This is basically a good concept, and I think it should be extended. My major concern-and this is something to which I referred a few days ago in response to a statement
Income Tax Law Amendment Act, 1971
on motions by the minister-is that the program basically caters to the more industrialized parts of the nation. There is nothing wrong with it. We need this kind of program to assist industry in Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg, Vancouver and so on. But the danger and weakness of the program is that there are tens of thousands of small Canadian communities where individuals cannot be placed in some industry training program. Consequently, this program is very discriminatory because it means that the vast majority of our 22 million Canadians cannot avail themselves of this program. This is a multimillion dollar program which basically caters to a very small segment of the Canadian population. In Canada, most people who enjoy the affluence of Members of Parliament, the affluence of executive assistants, the affluence of ministers and of the well-to-do, do not realize that vast segments of our population have not acquired the technical capability to carry on in this industrial age in 1971. They are not equipped to operate with any degree of competence. Again, I should apologize for not having the statistics at my fingertips.


John Edward Broadbent: Don't worry about the facts, John.


John Howard Lundrigan: The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) envies me, I am sure. Right now I am looking at one of my favourite colleagues, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) who must certainly envy me. Yesterday he made nine speeches and he is eager for the opportunity to rise and to place on record some of his finer points of view. I will certainly try not to delay that process for more than a few minutes.
In the parts of Canada with which I am more familiar, I know people who grew up in the depression years who were lucky if they had any kind of exposure to formal education. Today, these people cannot take part in any training program; they cannot get into upgrading programs and, if they do, they are faced with very serious restrictions, such as the one which requires a person to be in the labour force for three years before qualifying for any of these training programs. I contend that this regulation is very discriminatory. There are many thousands of young Canadians who have been out of school for a number of years and who have not been able to enter the labour force because of the serious unemployment situation. The end result is that today they are not entitled to take part in some of the manpower training programs because of the very restrictive and discriminatory regulation which requires them to be in the labour force for three consecutive years.
Another regulation which is very discriminatory and about which I and other hon. members of the House are concerned is that an individual can only take part in these programs for 52 weeks. I have seen many examples of this myself, and since my involvement as an observer of the Department of Manpower and Immigration for the last two or three years I have had many occasions to talk with people. I have heard representations from various people in various provinces who are discriminated against because they are only permitted to have 52 weeks of manpower training. Frequently an individual who has taken part in a training program continues to find difficulty in entering the labour force. Consequently, there must be some flexibility to allow young Canadians in
10724

December 22, 1971
Income Tax Law Amendment Act, 1971
particular to avail themselves of more extensive training through these manpower programs.
Another point that I want to make is that the study which was released a couple of days ago by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) was the most inadequate and costly study that I have seen for a long while. This was a study carried out by the minister and by a number of his officials. It was not scientifically based. The conclusions about the training program and the increase in employment opportunities were not valid conclusions. I can tell you for a fact that if any person with scientific or research knowledge analysed this study he would have to toss it in the wastepaper basket because of the conclusions reached. These conclusions were reached without proper foundation. They were not justified on the basis of the information available. The fact is that the study was incomplete and not scientifically conducted. I challenge the minister to look at the report of the Economic Council of Canada and of the Poverty Committee and try, in co-operation with the Dominion Bureau of Statistics which now is referred to as Statistics Canada, to conduct a scientific study of the manpower training program and the relevancy of this report.
I have had an opportunity to read in some detail a study conducted by the Fisheries College of St. John's Newfoundland. The Fisheries College is one of the most outstanding institutions in the world in marine affairs. It is an outstanding institution which is growing and developing daily. I believe it has the support of every elected member from the province of Newfoundland. These people did a study of the training and employment opportunities. They concluded, after spending a period of about six months studying the opportunities, that they were concerned with the lack of a positive co-relation between the training program and the opportunities available to these people after completing the program. This certainly points out to me the need for much more research. I know a number of people will say we have had enough research already in various fields. We must revise our manpower training program so that industry, in the broadest context, can bring people into industry and therefore help alleviate the unemployment situation. We must have a training program which is related to job opportunities if we are to have much more employment than we have had as a result of the manpower training program.
There is a matter which I have wanted to raise in the House for a number of days but did not have the opportunity to do so because of the ineffectiveness of the 40 minute question period. As a result, members of Parliament are not able to hold the government accountable for its behaviour. This is especially true in view of the absence of ministers which, so far as I am concerned, is illegal. Back in 1967 a job vacancy survey was started. It was a very forward step. An effort was made to ascertain the various vacancies across Canada, and the type of people presently trained and unemployed, in order to determine how we could integrate our manpower training program, our vocational training program, our adult program and our federal and provincial programs in some way with the needs of industry. That program began at a cost of $3 million to the Canadian taxpayers. There were

106 men involved. I should like someone to put a question on the order paper, perhaps I should do it myself, concerning how many people were involved in this program for about three or four years and the salaries they received. The cost was in excess of $3 million, yet the government refuses to make the result of this program public.
Sometime in October as a result of a question placed on the order paper by one of my colleagues, the government said it would have the result of the job vacancy survey released before the end of the year. It is obvious to me that the results have been known for several months. It is also obvious that the results have been suppressed. They are being used by the various government departments but are not being made public for the use of the provinces and of members of the opposition in making speeches on this important subject. We want those results so that we can ascertain where the vacancies are in Canada. The Prime Minister says there are lots of jobs but that the people are too lazy to avail themselves of them. We would like to know what the results of this job vacancy survey were. We would like to know, for example, if it is a fact that in the last three years the number of vacancies in Canadian industry has been cut in half. I say the government of Canada has an obligation to the Canadian people to make that document public immediately.
I am going to raise a point which has not been raised before. I think some of my colleagues to the left will want to ask questions on this subject before they begin their sojourn in their constituencies. I had a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) but I have not had an opportunity to ask it because he has been so preoccupied with answering questions from all my colleagues about the serious situation in the pulp and paper industry. I did not want to floor him with other inquiries. We have asked questions about the long-term unemployed Canadians. We have, of course discovered during the last few days that the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, which I like to call it, has conducted a very detailed study of people unemployed for periods longer than six months. We have found that this information about people unemployed for longer than six months has been made available to the government. When our competent people in the research office have inquired of DBS they have been refused this type of information.
We want the information. We want to know how many Canadians have been out of work for longer than six months and the effect this had had on the municipalities. DBS, for some reason or other, perhaps because of orders from the government department responsible for the administration of that office, has refused to give this type of information. When we talk about participatory democracy one almost has to be close to the government in power today in order to realize what kind of a statement that is. Personally, I have been involved for only a little while in politics and it is not the sort of thing to which I aspire. I do not aspire to a 35 or 40 year career. However, I have never seen a government which is supposed to be dedicated to working on behalf of the Canadian people and the Canadian workers which is so surreptitious and sneaky. Today, documents are being refused because the government feels it can use them to its own advantage in a sneaky and surreptitious manner. I would like to bring
December 22, 1971

this up in the House in more detail, when people are here to hear about it.


An hon. Member:: Do it now.


John Howard Lundrigan: The government of Canada is gypping the Canadian people-


An hon. Member:: Right.


John Howard Lundrigan: -by keeping a document buried in its closets which cost the Canadian people $3 million. The Canadian people paid $3 million to find out where all those jobs are that the Prime Minister talks about.
In 1967, before this Parliament started, the government had instituted this program to determine the manpower opportunities and job vacancies. The government has had that document in its possession for the past six months. This report has been used by various departments for propaganda purposes. It has not been made available to the Canadian people. What kind of participatory democracy are we talking about? The Canadian people will think this is a disgrace, particularly when they learn of the cost of the document.
I will conclude by saying I hope other hon. members will have an opportunity during the few remaining minutes today to refer specifically to the manpower training program. I know what my friend, the young hon. member from Saskatchewan is going to say. He will be talking about the relevancy of the Department of Manpower and Immigration to educational opportunities in Canada. He will be challenging the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) to point out to the Prime Minister the need for some co-ordinated effort by the federal government and the provinces in the area of manpower training and the whole field of educational activity. He is an educator. I recognize him as an intelligent parliamentarian, an active parliamentarian. I will be listening carefully to the recommendations he will be making to the Prime Minister and to the department to try to get some co-ordination of effort between the provinces and the federal government in the area of human resource development.


Mr.   Jean-R. Roy@Timmins: Mr. Speaker, when discussing this budget measure I would like to deal with the taxation situation of prospectors which will drastically change following adoption of the tax reforms. It will drastically change by virtue of the fact that prospectors presently are exempted from taxation when they receive revenue for the sale of mining property. Under the new tax proposals this revenue will be taxable in 1972.
Up to now the revenue that they derived from the sale of property was considered a capital gain. This was recognized in the white paper which said:
For many years the act has continued a provision which specifically exempts from tax the proceeds received by a prospector or a grubstaker on the sale of a mining property. This provision was intended to make it clear that the government viewed this type of gain as a capital gain which under the existing system would of course be tax-exempt. Under the new proposals capital gains are to be taxed and this exemption would therefore be repealed.
Income Tax Law Amendment Act, 1971
I would like to point out the difficulty that this repeal will create for the prospector who, by virtue of the type of work he does, and the time limit that is applicable to his earnings and revenues, can go for years without making any really worthwhile revenue. I am referring to the capital gain aspect of his livelihood.
The Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs recognized this difficulty, and in their 18th report stated:
We further recommend that taxpayers should be allowed to establish a "bank" of earned depletion as at the start of the system by calculating past exploration and development expenditures less any depletion allowed. There would have to be strict provisions to prevent trafficking in dormant depletion credits.
This proposal is approved for grubstakers. However, we recommend that prospectors continue to be treated as under the present Act.
Here, the committee made a distinction between grubstakers and prospectors.
When the Senate Banking, Trade and Commerce Committee made its report on the white paper, it also recognized the difficulty that this would entail for the prospector, and stated:
Your Committee recommends against the implementation of proposals in paragraph 5.45 of the White Paper to withdraw an exemption heretofore enjoyed by prospectors and grubstakers under section 83 of the Income Tax Act.
Finally, in the "Summary of 1971 Tax Reform Legislation" it is stated:
The legislation also provides that no amount will be included in income when individual prospectors and grubstakers sell mining properties to a corporation for shares of that corporation. The individual will be considered to have acquired the shares at no cost and will therefore be taxed on one-half the proceeds of eventual sale of the shares under the normal capital gains rules.
When a prospector receives shares as revenue from the sale of mining property, the tax legislation that will be in effect in 1972 clearly recognizes the capital gain aspect of that type of a revenue. We cannot see how the minister can possibly differentiate between revenue that is cash and revenue that is shares. It seems to me that the capital gain aspect is proved by the fact that there is an increase in value in the capital that is invested. Whether this increase in earnings is paid in money or shares, in peanuts or what-have-you, has nothing to do with it.
Therefore, I would like to make an appeal to the minister and to the government that when they are considering the amendments the minister has promised to introduce early in the new year to the tax reform legislation that will take effect on January 1, 1972, one amendment will deal more fairly with the capital gain aspect of prospectors' earnings. The minister should accept the recommendations of the standing committees of the House and of the Senate, and meet the representations made by prospectors, mining firms and groups all across the country. The fact that there are very few prospectors in Canada should not deter the minister from restoring the situation to what it was, as recommended by the two standing committees.
Finally, I think the minister should recognize the value of the time spent by a prospector in developing properties. An individual prospector who develops a property is not working for anyone else, does not have access to weekly earnings or salary of any sort, and depends on the once-in-a-lifetime sale of that property for his livelihood. I

December 22, 1971
Income Tax Law Amendment Act, 1971
suggest it is time that prospectors be given the relief to which they are entitled.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-275 essentially deals with two different items. It deals with a reduction in income tax for individuals and corporations, and also with certain payments for manpower training. In view of the fact that I gave my notes on manpower training to the hon. member for Gander-Twil-lingate (Mr. Lundrigan), I will now address myself primarily to the tax reductions for individuals and corporations. The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate went on at great length about manpower training, and for that reason I will try to stick to the other point. When the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate first started speaking, he said he did not understand the approach of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), but I hope that after hearing me and a couple of other members of this party, he will be enlightened.
On October 14 the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) introduced a number of new measures, one of which was a 7 per cent cut back in corporate income tax and the other a 3 per cent cut back in personal income tax. As the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby said, we think the way he is pursuing this tax reduction is unfair, inequitable and regressive. What is before us, Mr. Speaker, is nothing less than a gift to those who have large incomes, and also a gift to corporations. The Minister of Finance is a great big jolly Santa Claus and on his back he has a big bag full of goodies, but only for the richer and more wealthy people in the country. This is the type of society this government has been building. When they talk about the just society they do not refer to the working people, the small businessmen and the farmers, but just the rich people of Canada. That is why I am rising to take part in this debate, and why our party is concerned about Bill C-275 which is just another piece of regressive legislation.
My riding is made up primarily of farming people, working people and small business people. I know most of them realize that the tax system in Canada today works against them and makes their daily lives more difficult. This bill only perpetuates the tax system which was supposed to help them. The reduction in personal income tax is uniform right across the board, a 3 per cent reduction for everyone regardless of income, while the corporation tax is reduced by 7 per cent.
I cannot help thinking of the speech given in this House on December 16 by the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans) when we see the inequity in the bill before us. He made the comment that in recent years the government has been gaining more revenues from the individual than from the corporations in this country. He said that in 1961-62, 35 per cent of all federal government revenue came from taxes on individuals. Last year, it was 41.4 per cent. Over the last ten years, more government revenue came from individuals than ten years before. Looking at corporations over the same period, we see that they pay less now than they did in 1961-62. According to government figures, in 1961-62 government revenue from corporation taxes was 231 per cent while last year it was 191 per cent. This illustrates the inequity of the tax system in this country, an inequity which is perpetuated and accentuat-

ed by the bill before us. Certainly the economy needs to be stimulated, but this must not be achieved by giving extra privileges and gifts to those who already enjoy privileges under the existing system. What we should do is give extra privileges to those in the lower and middle income groups and arrange for more government spending. This would generate activity in the economy and a higher employment rate which would benefit everybody. As it is now, we know that the economy works against the great majority of people in Canada.
Earlier this afternoon the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby quoted some statistics which I think should be emphasized. Bill C-259 reshuffles the income tax rate, and I would like to show how this affects a married taxpayer with two children under 16 years of age who earns $4,000 a year. After passage of the new tax bill, he will pay $73 in income tax. If the bill before us today is passed he will pay 3 per cent less which amounts to $1.09. The man in the same circumstances who earns $30,000 a year will pay $152.34 less and the man earning $100,000 a year will pay $757.70 less. This shows the regressive nature of this tax bill before us today. If you happen to be wealthy, the amount of the reduction will be greater and you will pay less tax to the government. This is not the way to stimulate the economy, nor is it the way to help the average and middle income earner in the country. As I said, the bill synchronizes beautifully with the line of the tax amendment passed by the House in these last weeks.
Now, I should like to spend a few moments pointing out what the tax system does to a number of people in this country. Let us consider the positions of three single men who have no dependents, each earning $10,000 a year after the passage of the tax reform bill and the bill before us. The first man who earns $10,000 through wages or salary is going to be taxed $2,285 per annum. The second man, who earns $10,000 through capital gains is going to be taxed $844 per annum. The third man, who earns $10,000 by dividends from corporations is going to be taxed $193. Is this equity or neutrality in the tax system? I suggest it is not and that we should make a value judgment. If you earn money from capital gains or dividends you are worth more and are taxed at a lesser rate than if you earn money in a factory, on a farm or in a small business. This is the type of inequity on which we based our tax system, and Bill C-275 is just an extension of it which also favours those who have money over those who do not.
Another section of the bill before us today reduces corporate income tax by 7 per cent right across the board. There is no consideration of whether a corporation is large or small, whether it is labour-intensive or capitalintensive, foreign controlled or Canadian controlled or of the type of industry involved. As a result, I believe that this 7 per cent reduction will be nothing more than a "rip off" at the taxpayer's expense. Here again the tax system as it relates to corporations and industry, is inequitable. The hon. member for Duvernay pointed this out quite brilliantly when he spoke in this House earlier in this session.
Statistics published by the Manitoba Department of Finance verify my point. They show the taxes paid on profits and an average of the profits made by certain businesses in this country over the last ten years. As I
December 22, 1971

said, the bill before us has a uniform 7 per cent reduction in income tax for corporations right across the board, regardless of the type of company involved. These figures show that in the last ten years retail merchants paid taxes on 90 per cent of profits; wholesale companies paid taxes on 87 per cent of profits; the construction industry paid taxes on 77 per cent of profits; manufacturers paid taxes on 65 per cent of profits. Then, we get down to the mining companies, and we see that they paid on only 13 per cent of profits. Oil and gas companies have paid taxes on 5.7 per cent of the profits they have made in Canada in the last ten years.
And what do we have before us at present? We have a bill that will reduce corporate income tax by 7 per cent across the board, regardless of whether the company is an oil company, a mining company, or a retail company. I suggest that unplanned, ad hoc policies like these will, in the long run, work against the good of the Canadian economy and against increases in employment. They are not good for Canadians in general. Yet this is the type of planning that has occurred in this country ever since this government took office in 1968. It went on long before that. We need a tax system that is fair and equitable, so that the person who makes $10,000 from stocks and bonds is taxed on the same basis as the man who makes his living by working in a factory. We need a progressive tax system, so that the man making $100,000 pays a proportionately greater amount of his income in tax than the man who makes between $4,000 and $5,000. We will not solve many problems such as unemployment, poverty and those connected with regional development that we talk so much about unless we introduce a more equitable tax system in Canada.
This bill is not taking us in that direction. It is unfair, regressive, and will not stimulate the economy and provide jobs, which is what the minister may want. It is nothing but a handout to the wealthier in Canada; it is nothing but a handout to mining corporations, oil and gas corporations and other corporations which do not need handouts. Many of these corporations do not provide many jobs. For that reason, I appeal to members of the House to thing about this seriously. I appeal to members of the Conservative party not to jump into bed with the government again, but to stand up for the ordinary person of this country, for the average working man, and to speak out against this bill which is regressive and inequitable.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that by now it has become evident to the House that we, over in this corner, are more concerned about the principle of the bill than about the mechanics or the dollars and cents and percentages involved in the tax bill.


An hon. Member:: Careful now.


Winona Grace MacInnis: We are concerned because this bill involves our whole approach to a more just and fair society. We intend to make this point as we go along. This bill cannot be considered apart from other bills passed by this government. This tax bill must be considered in conjunction with the government's approach to society. That
Income Tax Law Amendment Act, 1971
is how we look at it; but that is not the view of the government.
I was quite impressed with certain passages appearing in a transcript of an interview that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) granted to James Reston of the New York Times on December 21 this year. I want to read a passage from this transcript. The entire transcript is exceedingly revealing of the philosophy that is behind the Prime Minister's thinking and, by extension, behind the thinking of the entire government. I do not think there is any secret about whose philosophy is all pervasive in the government ranks. The Prime Minister said:
People will look for the security which this system cannot give and they will try to find it in less free avenues in politics.
So that's my underlying assumption when I look at the world, when I look at the problems which exist elsewhere, and I think in a sense that can explain a lot of the troubles we're having, not only in the sub-continent or Northern Ireland or in the black ghettos or the conflicts in Canada. And from that follows also, I think, the only way of avoiding that increasing gap between the desire, the expectation, and the fulfillment. It's by repeating the truth to the people and getting them to participate in the decision-not in order that it be better, but in order that they realize for themselves that their expectations cannot be fulfilled and that the problem is more difficult of solution than the dreams would reveal. Now, this may not be clear to you.
Unfortunately, it is abundantly clear to many of us in this House, and the Prime Minister's attitude has been revealed to us over a long series of months and through legislation. The Prime Minister is saying to the people: You cannot aspire to a better kind of life than you are now living, and the job of Members of Parliament is to go out among the people and tell them that they cannot have it.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


An hon. Member:: Give it to them, Grace.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Listen, I do not mind heckling from the other side, but I object to heckling from my own side. It's too noisy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Winona Grace MacInnis: We have better hecklers over here. What did the Prime Minister say? Hon. members can read text for themselves, if they wish. He says that the trouble today is that people believe that they can have a better life. Well, they cannot have a better life and it is up to parliamentarians to go out among them and tell them they cannot have a better life. Surely, hon. members realize that this process is going on now. May I quote one more little passage. The Prime Minister said:
You know, in days where the British parliamentary system invented the system of paying the leader of the opposition and calling him Her Majesty's loyal opposition, it was because there wasn't enough press and television and union groups and university groups and so on. But now in a sense everybody is making it his job and it is I'm afraid pushing that society towards a breakdown.
In other words, the opposition is merely a vestigial remnant of parliamentary democracy and should be stopped. Well, it is not going to be stopped.


An hon. Member:: You said it; he did not.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Winona Grace MacInnis: May I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday. December 23, 1971