1971-09-08

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Speaker:: On the notice paper which is appended to this day's order paper hon. members will have noticed that there is listed for introduction at the next sitting of the House notice of a bill intituled "An act to provide for the payment of benefits in respect of children."
I must state to the House that because of a misunderstanding on the part of our officials who are ordinarily charged with the responsibility of preparing the notice paper this bill was inadvertently listed for introduction.
In most cases, copies of government bills and recommendations come into the hands of our officials prior to the actual posting of bills for introduction in the House. In that way, the officials of the House are able to carry out certain preparatory work in connection with such bills. However, a notice of that kind of bill does not go on the notice paper until an official notification and copy of the bill are received. In this case, no official copy of the bill or request for the posting of the bill was received.
The Chair appreciates the difficulties that may have been created, but I have no alternative but to strike the entry from the notice paper.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a question of privilege with respect to the reply given yesterday to a question of mine by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) when I inquired about a writ of assistance issued to a customs officer and used in Atlin in the northern part of British Columbia. I asked the minister to explain the reasons for the issuance of a writ of assistance which is in effect a blanket search warrant with power to seize, arrest, etc. Incidentally, I directed the question to the Minister of Justice or the Attorney General of Canada, whichever one had that responsibility-it is the same person-whichever office held the responsibility. The minister replied as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the particular facts in this instance, but the writs of assistance to which the hon. member refers were issued under the terms of the statute and under the authority of the Minister of National Revenue.
The applicable statute which was used and under which officers were appointed is the Customs Act. I checked and discovered that section 145 reads as follows:
A judge of the Exchequer Court of Canada may grant a writ of assistance to an officer upon the application of the Attorney General of Canada, and such writ shall remain in force for as long as the person named therein remains an officer, whether in the same capacity or not.
I would not normally have raised this matter as a question of privilege, but as we know that the Minister of Justice is the only cabinet minister who never makes a mistake I can only assume that he was trying to lead us off in another direction by saying that the responsibility was that of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray). If I were to found a motion on the question of privilege that the Minister of Justice gave inaccurate information, I think it would have to be that this House regrets that the Minister of Justice does not know what is going on in his own department.
.10 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether any purpose is to be served in pursuing the matter. This is obviously a question of debate between the hon. member and the Minister of Justice. I would think that the normal course would be for the hon. member to ask the question again and see whether he gets the same or a different reply. At this time I suggest to him that a dispute as to fact cannot at any time in any circumstances found a legitimate question of privilege.



MR. HEES-ONE HUNDREDTH BIRTHDAY OF COLONEL R. S. MCLAUGHLIN

Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to draw to the attention of the House that today is the celebration of the one hundredth birthday of a very distinguished Canadian, the man who founded the automobile industry in Canada and who has distinguished himself in many fields, a man of whom Canada is very proud, Colonel R. S. McLaughlin.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Peace River also rising on a question of privilege?


Mr. Baldwin:: It could be a matter of privilege or it could be raised on motions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have had an indication of what the hon. member has in mind and my understanding is that possibly it could be raised on motions. As the hon. member for Peace River knows, I have had no notice from him of his intention to raise this matter by way of question of privilege.

September 8, 1971
Questions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, as found at page 7551 of Hansard, I asked the Minister of National Defence the following question supplementary to other questions which had been asked:
Is it the intention of the government to move for amendments to the National Defence Act to give effect to the view of the Prime Minister of Quebec that the federal government should defray the whole cost of the military operations in Quebec during that period?
I am quite certain, and this has been confirmed by other people in the House, that the answer of the minister was "No," or "No, sir." We had difficulty with sound reinforcement systems yesterday. Normally the minister speaks in a voice which can be well heard throughout the House. The minister is not available. I have tried my best to get in touch with him. As he is not here I thought I had better bring this matter to the attention of the House on motions and also indicate that I will renew the question to the Prime Minister later so that the matter, which is important may be set at rest.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Crouse: 1.	Was the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry invited to attend a meeting of the Northcoast District Council at Prince Rupert, B.C., on January 25, 1971 and, if so, did he refuse to meet with the fishermen of this area and for what reason?
2.	Would the Minister be willing to meet with these fishermen at a mutually agreed upon date?


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Environment):: 1. Yes, an invitation to attend a meeting in Prince Rupert on January 25, 1971, was received by the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry on January 11, 1971. The Minister replied on the same date and again on January 18th that he could not attend because of other commitments on January 25th which could not be changed on such short notice.
2. Yes.


CNR-DISPOSAL OF DAMAGED GOODS-ST. JOHN'S, NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Carter: 1.	What procedure does CNR follow in St. John's, Newfoundland, in disposing of damaged goods?

2.	Are public sales held and, if so (a) how often (b) how are they advertised?
3.	What are the names of individuals and/or companies whose total annual purchases have exceeded $5,000 during the years 1966,1967,1968, 1969 and 1970?
4.	What has been the total sales value of goods disposed of during the same period?


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1 and 2. In some cases damaged goods are returned to the consignor or disposed of on instructions from the shipper. However, where the railway has effected settlement of a claim or the shipment has been refused the goods become the property of the railway and are disposed of in a manner that will maximize the return to the railway. As a general practice across the system, damaged goods are disposed of through salvage dealers. At St. John's, due to the fact there is only one such dealer who has shown interest in buying damaged goods on a regular basis, groups consisting of employees of the Railway and its affiliated operations, commonly known as combines have been organized for years and representatives of such groups attend the various sales. Prices are affixed by the Claims Department to all goods to be disposed of and sales are held periodically on Saturdays, depending upon the amount of merchandise available. What is not disposed of during the Saturday sales is made available to interested salvage dealers on the following Tuesday. While the general public do attend some of the sales, the practice for years has been to advertise only through bulletins to employees.
3.	There are about 124 employee combines, averaging 15 persons, and as most of the sales are made to those groups, it would involve considerable time and expense to determine the names of the individuals purchasing these goods. During the years 1966-1970 inclusive the only salvage dealer having an interest in this material, Mr. P. Gosse, purchased all of the material not taken by the combines and his purchases in each of those years exceeded the sum of $5,000.
4.	Total sales to all persons were: 1966, $135,184.16; 1967, $158,291.44; 1968, $149,936.34; 1969, $106,713.80; 1970, $73,145.23.


PAYMENTS TO CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD UNDER TEMPORARY WHEAT RESERVES ACT
Mr. Skoberg: Are payments being made on a monthly basis to the Canadian Wheat Board under the provisions of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act and (a) if so, are the payments still being made (b) if not, for what reason?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Payments are not being made to the Canadian Wheat Board under the provisions of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act on a monthly basis because the Government has a bill before the House to rescind that act effective August 1,1970.
September 8, 1971


GRANTS TO FOREIGN-OWNED OR FOREIGN CONTROLLED-COMPANIES
Mr. Harkness: Under the regional economic expansion program, how much money has been provided in the way of grants to foreign-owned, or foreign-controlled companies, from the inception of the program to the present time?
Mr. ]. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council): $42,834,307.


SOCIAL INSURANCE CARDS
Mr. Robinson: Is it possible for illegal entrants to Canada to obtain Social Insurance cards and, if so, will the government consider the advisability of restricting such issue?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Social insurance number cards are at present available on demand to anyone wishing to fill in an application. This application does not contain anything which would allow us to identify illegal entrants to Canada. During the past few months, negotiations have been held with the Department of Manpower and Immigration, the result of which is an agreement to amend the application to include a question concerning the applicant's status. This means that the applicant would have to indicate whether he is a citizen, landed immigrant or otherwise resident in Canada. Implementation of this agreement is imminent.


NEWFOUNDLAND-REQUEST FOR FEDERAL AID
Mr. Marshall: 1.	Has the Province of Newfoundland submitted the following proposals to the federal government for assistance from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion or from the Department of Fisheries and Forestry (a) small boat slipways in the amount of $1,020,000 (b) community and fish handling facilities in the amount of $3,430,000 (c) fisheries service centres in the amount of $3,610,000 (d) unloading facilities on wharves in the amount of $500,000 (e) fishery access roads in the amount of $1,000,000 (f) upgrading of vessels and equipment entering new fisheries in the amount of $3,000,000 (g) multi-purpose boats in the amount of $3,000,000 (h) small boats in the amount of $1,000,000 (i) bounties on fishing gear and equipment in the amount of $3,500,000 (j) fishery development program in the amount of $10,000,000 (k) dragger subsidies in the amount of $2,000,000 (1) mechanical haul-outs in the amount of $4,975,000?
2.	What amount would the federal government contribute to this program?
3.	Of the federal contribution, how much would be in loans and how much in grants?


Eymard G. Corbin: 1. Proposals were not submitted in the format outlined in the question. However, submissions covering these aspects of fisheries development were conveyed to the Department of Fisheries and Forestry by the Newfoundland Government. Discussions have been held between the two governments and are continuing.
2 and 3. The amount of the Federal Government's contribution has not been finalized.
Questions


CIDA-AWARDING OF CONTRACTS TO CANADIAN CONTROLLED FIRMS
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,107-Mr. Orlikow:	.
1.	Is it the policy of the government to give preference to Canadian-controlled firms in the awarding of contracts by CIDA and, if so, what steps are taken to determine whether or not a particular firm is Canadian-controlled?
2.	In determining such control, is consideration given to (a) stock ownership (b) whether or not the specialized facilities to be employed in the execution of the contract are owned or leased by the prospective contractor and, if leased, are the name and nationality of the lessor and the terms and duration of the lease taken into account (c) whether or not the equipment to be employed is owned or leased and, if leased, are the name and nationality of the lessor and the terms and duration of the lease taken into account (d) whether employees are full-time, regular employees of the firm or engaged for the specific CIDA contract and, if not regular employees, are the firms from which they are obtained taken into account (e) the proportion of profits and overheads which will accrue to foreign-controlled firms?
3.	What proportion, if any, of a contract may be sublet to a foreign-controlled firm?
4.	Are steps taken to ensure that the Canadian-controlled firm is not a front for a foreign corporation and, if so, what are they?
5.	If aircraft are employed, must they be operated and maintained by Canadian-controlled firms?
6.	Have Lockwood Consultants Limited, Spartan-Aero Limited and Geoterrex Limited, been qualified to bid on CIDA work and, if so, are they regarded as Canadian-controlled firms eligible to be awarded a contract by CIDA?
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. The policy of CIDA has been to award contracts to Canadian-owned firms. The firms must register with CIDA and disclose their ownership. The details are checked by CIDA from other sources.
2.	(a) Yes, to the degree possible, (b) Yes, to the degree possible, (c) Yes, to the degree possible, (d) Yes, particularly for professional and senior personnel, (e) Not specifically, but any contracts to a foreign-controlled firm require the prior approval of CIDA.
3.	Contracts are sublet to the degree practicable to Canadian firms. In the event the required services are not available from Canadian sources a Canadian prime contractor may be authorized to sublet up to 25 per cent of the work to a foreign-controlled firm, normally those of the recipient country.
4.	Yes. Normal business checks are employed such as Dun & Bradstreet, Annual Reports and Letters Patent issued by Federal or Provincial authorities.
5.	Aircraft used on CIDA contracts must be operated and maintained in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence required by the Air Transport Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission and in conformance with the technical safety rules set by the Canadian Air Transportation Administration of the Ministry of Transport.
6.	(a) Lockwood Consultants Limited have qualified as a Canadian-controlled company and have been awarded a CIDA contract, (b) Spartan-Aero Limited is a relatively new company which has applied for registration with CIDA. This company would appear to meet the criteria but all the checks have not yet been made, (c) Geoterrex is not regarded as a Canadian-controlled company and has not been awarded a CIDA contract.

September 8, 1971
7598___________________________
Questions


RESTRICTIONS ON EXPORTS TO CHINA
Mr. Mather: Are Canadian subsidiaries of US manufacturers of agricultural and transport machinery restricted in any way from exporting such equipment to China?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Agricultural and civil transport machinery may be exported from Canada to the People's Republic of China under the authority of an export permit issued under the Export and Import Permits Act. Permits are generally granted to any resident of Canada applying to export such goods. Goods of United States origin require the prior authorization of the United States Government; i.e., general license, validated export license, or other authorization under a provision of U.S. Export Control Regulations.


PUBLIC WORKS-TUNNEY'S PASTURE, CONVERSION OF HEATING PLANT
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Were tenders called for contract CR-67-2711, June 13, 1967, Conversion of heating plant to gas/oil, Tunney's Pasture and, if so (a) what was the number of bids received (b) what was the highest and what was the lowest (c) what bid was accepted (d) how was the notice of tender publicized?
2.	If no tenders were submitted, what was the reason?
3.	Who was awarded the contract?
4.	If the Department of Public Works executed the contract (a) what was the cost of (i) architectural supervision (ii) engineering supervision (iii) excavation (iv) foundation (v) super structure roofing contractor and concrete supplier (vi) masonry construction (vii) interior divisions plastering and interior finish partition (viii) heating and air conditioning (ix) electrical wiring (x) plumbing and heating (b) by whom was same done?
5.	Who was the bonding company for sub contracts?
6.	With whom was the insurance placed for sub trades?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1. No. (a)
Not applicable; (b) not applicable; (c) not applicable; (d) not applicable.
2.	Competitive tenders were not called because The Consumers' Gas Company is the most suitable firm to perform a contract of this specialized nature in the Ottawa area.
3.	The Consumers' Gas Company in the amount of $322,531.
4.	(a) (i) None, (ii) $600. Estimated cost of Engineering supervision by Department of Public Works, (a) and (b)
(iii)	to (x) In very few cases does the Department require the General Contractor to list on the tender form all the names of the subcontractors they propose using. A cost breakdown by work subdivision, as provided by the General Contractor, is attached including the names of those trades which were required to be listed.
5	and 6. The contractual arrangements are directly between the Department and the General Contractor. Consequently the matter of performance bonds and insurance for subcontractors is the sole responsibility of the General Contractor.
Cost Breakdown by Trades Conversion of Heating Plant to Gas/Oil, Tunney's Pasture Contract CR-67-2711
Burners and accessories	$12,250
Windboxes, Steel Work, Gbs.
Ports-installed	11,200
Dismantling stokers, coal feed ducts, cinder overire	2,750
Safeguard system components	15,850
Refractory setting	12,150
Master system, panel components fid.
accessories	6,050
Pump and Heater set, P.O. Set Unloading equipment	14,900
Concrete oil storage, accessories, gen.
contracting work	82,600
Misc. Mech. items, spares, oil meters	6,000
Complete Bailey system, installed- tested	44,600
Piping system, oil and gas, installation, propane, safety valves, master panel mechanical work	65,100
Field wiring system, new skeleton,
M.C.C. Panel	25,400
Field installation, shipping, photos	4,081
Painting, identification, etc.	2,750
Instruction, training, ASME tests, permits, supervision	5,150
Boiler tube changes	5,900
Design and shop drwgs, engineering, warranty	5,800


PUBLIC WORKS-ADDITIONS TO CENTRAL EXPERIMENTAL FARM
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Were tenders called for contract 9C-07054, November 13,1969, Additions to Central Poultry Testing Station, Central Experimental Farm and, if so (a) what was the number of bids received (b) what was the highest and what was the lowest (c) what bid was accepted (d) how was the notice of tender publicized?
2.	If no tenders were submitted, what was the reason?
3.	Who was awarded the contract?
4.	If the Department of Public Works executed the contract (a) what was the cost of (i) architectural supervision (ii) engineering supervision (iii) excavation (iv) foundation (v) super structure roofing contractor and concrete supplier (vi) masonry construction (vii) interior divisions plastering and interior finish partition (viii) heating and air conditioning (ix) electrical wiring (x) plumbing and heating (b) by whom was same done?
5.	Who was the bonding company for sub contracts?
6.	With whom was the insurance placed for sub trades?


Arthur Laing: 1. Yes, (a) Two tenders were received and opened on November 1969. (b) Highest tender, $36,885.; lowest tender, $29,770. (c) Lowest tender, (d) Public advertisement, newspapers: Ottawa and Hull.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Herbert Brune Construction Ltd.

September 8, 1971

4.	(a) (i) $350. Estimated cost of Architectural supervision by Department of Public Works, (ii) None, (a) and (b) (iii) to (x) In very few cases does the Department require the General Contractor to list on the tender form all the names of the subcontractors they propose using. A cost breakdown by work subdivision, as provided by the General Contractor, is attached including the names of those trades which were required to be listed.
5 and 6. The contractual arrangements are directly between the Department and the General Contractor. Consequently the matter of performance bonds and insurance for subcontractors is the sole responsibility of the General Contractor.
Cost Breakdown by Trades Additions to Central Poultry Station,
Central Experimental Farm Contract 9C-07054
Sewer installation	$ 8,000
Excavation, Backfill and Grading	1,400
Concrete Work	1,300
Rough Carpentry	4,200
Roofing and Sheetmetal	700
Windows and Glazing	400
Millwork and Finishing Carpentry	1,000
Drywall	300
Painting	450
Finishing Hardware and Washroom Accessories	220
Lockers	300
Mechanical	3,800
Electrical	2,300
Paving	350
Insurance, Bonds, Permits	1,300
General Cond., Overhead and Profit	3,750


PUBLIC WORKS-HEATING SERVICES, POSTAL TERMINAL BUILDING AND RCMP COMPLEX
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Were tenders called for contract 9C-03915, November 12, 1969, Heating Services to Postal Terminal Building and RCMP complex and, if so (a) what was the number of bids received (b) what was the highest and what was the lowest (c) what bid was accepted (d) how was the notice of tender publicized?
2.	If no tenders were submitted, what was the reason?
3.	Who was awarded the contract?
4.	If the Department of Public Works executed the contract (a) what was the cost of (i) architectural supervision (ii) engineering supervision (iii) excavation (iv) foundation (v) super structure roofing contractor and concrete supplier (vi) masonry construction (vii) interior divisions plastering and interior finish partition (viii) heating and air conditioning (ix) electrical wiring (x) plumbing and heating (b) by whom was same done?
5.	Who was the bonding company for sub contracts?
6.	With whom was the insurance placed for sub trades?


Arthur Laing: 1. Yes, (a) Five tenders were received and opened on August 12, 1969. (b) Highest tender, $1,417,000.; lowest tender, $1,115,000. (c) Lowest tender, (d) Public advertisement-Newspapers: Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa and Hull; Heavy Construction News, Toronto; Daily Commercial News and Building Record, Toronto; Journal Constructo, Ville Jacques-Cartier.
Questions
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Crump Mechanical Contracting Co. Ltd. (Negotiations were carried out with the low bidder to affect savings and the revised contract price of $972,683. was agreed to by both parties.)
4.	(a) (i) None, (ii) $26,033. Goodkey Weedmark & Associates Ltd., Consulting Engineers, (a) and (b) (iii) to (x) In very few cases does the Department require the General Contractor to list on the tender form all the names of the subcontractors they propose using. A cost breakdown by work subdivision, as provided by the General Contractor, is attached including the names of those trades which were required to be listed.
5 and 6. The contractual arrangements are directly between the Department and the General Contractor. Consequently the matter of performance bonds and insurance for subcontractors is the sole responsibility of the General Contractor.
Cost Breakdown by Trades Heating Services to Postal Terminal and RCMP Complex Contract 9C-03915
Excavation and backfill including manholes
(Fuller Construction Co. Ltd.)	$290,000
Underground piping	530,000
Expansion joints, pumps, valves	65,000
Steel piping, etc.	51,000
Electrical	1,500
Insulation (Applied Insulation Co. Ltd.)	10,000
General Cost	25,183


PUBLIC WORKS-CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING No. 45, GREENBELT FARM
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Were tenders called for contract 9C-06228, October 30, 1969, Construction of Building No. 45, Greenbelt Farm and, if so (a) what was the number of bids received (b) what was the highest and what was the lowest (c) what bid was accepted (d) how was the notice of tender publicized?
2.	If no tenders were submitted, what was the reason?
3.	Who was awarded the contract?
4.	If the Department of Public Works executed the contract (a) what was the cost of (i) architectural supervision (ii) engineering supervision (iii) excavation (iv) foundation (v) super structure roofing contractor and concrete supplier (vi) masonry construction (vii) interior divisions plastering and interior finish partition (viii) heating and air conditioning (ix) electrical wiring (x) plumbing and heating (b) by whom was same done?
5.	Who was the bonding company for sub contracts?
6.	With whom was the insurance placed for sub trades?


Arthur Laing: 1. Yes, (a) Six tenders were received and opened October 16, 1969.
(b)	Highest tender, $274,059.; lowest tender, $217,000. (Insufficient security accompanied the low tender. In accordance with Departmental requirements low bidder is allowed 48 hours to replace the security in the proper amount. Failure to do so results in the disqualification of the tender. The low bidder failed to comply with the requirements and the tender was rejected.) (c) Second lowest tender, (d) Public advertisement-Newspapers: Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa and Hull; Heavy Construction

September 8, 1971
Questions
News, Toronto; Daily Commercial News & Building Record, Toronto; Journal Constructo, Ville Jacques-Car-tier.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Cyrus J. Moulton Limited-Contract amount $256,897.
4.	(a) (i) and (ii) $6,305.-Brais, Frigon, Hanley, Brett & Minty, Consulting Engineers, (a) and (b) (iii) to (x) In very few cases does the Department require the General Contractor to list on the tender form all the names of the subcontractors they propose using. A cost breakdown by work subdivision, as provided by the General Contractor, is attached including the names of those trades which were required to be listed.
5 and 6. The contractual arrangements are directly between the Department and the General Contractor. Consequently the matter of performance bonds and insurance for subcontractors is the sole responsibility of the General Contractor.
Cost Breakdown by Trades Construction of Building No. 45,
Greenbelt Farm-
Contract 9C-06228
Bonds, insurance, permits	$ 4,700
Excavation, backfilling, grading
(Tessier Construction Ltd.)	6,050
Paving	3,400
Exterior sewers (Tessier Construction Ltd.)	1,362
Concrete and formwork
(Tessier Construction Ltd.)	39,200
Misc. metals	16,700
Metal siding and roofing (Ideal Metal Work)	10,250
Carpentry	55,000
Fibreglass feed boxes	6,000
Caulking and weatherstripping	960
Vapour barrier	2,600
Doors (Ambico Sales)	5,800
Windows (Hull Glass Ltd.)	330
Glass and glazing	450
Painting and epoxy treatment (G. T. Green)	9,000
Finishing hardware	2,050
Steel lockers (Peddlar People)	720
Prefab freezer and cooler	5,200
Weigh scales	2,065
Insulation	4,150
Conveying systems (gutter cleaner)	1,500
Mechanical (Andy's Mechanical)	51,650
Electrical (Bisson Electric)	27,760


PUBLIC WORKS-CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING NO. 2, GREENBELT FARM
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Were tenders called for contract 9C-00904, June 6, 1969, Construction of Building, No. 2, Greenbelt Farm and, if so (a) what was the number of bids received (b) what was the highest and what was the lowest (c) what bid was accepted (d) how was the notice of tender publicized?
2.	If no tenders were submitted, what was the reason?
3.	Who was awarded the contract?
4.	If the Department of Public Works executed the contract (a) what was the cost of (i) architectural supervision (ii) engineering

supervision (iii) excavation (iv) foundation (v) super structure roofing contractor and concrete supplier (vi) masonry construction (vii) interior divisions plastering and interior finish partition (viii) heating and air conditioning (ix) electrical wiring (x) plumbing and heating (b) by whom was same done?
5: Who was the bonding company for sub contracts?
6.	With whom was the insurance placed for sub trades?


Arthur Laing: 1. Yes, (a) Six tenders were received and opened on May 22,1969. (b) Highest tender, $87,000.; lowest tender, $79,000. (c) Lowest tender, (d) Public advertisement-Newspapers: Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa and Hull; Heavy Construction News, Toronto; Daily Commercial News and Building Record, Toronto; Journal Constructo, Ville Jacques-Cartier.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	W. N. Construction (Ottawa) Ltd.
4.	(a) (i) $800.-Estimated cost of Architectural supervision by Department of Public Works, (ii) None, (a) and (b) (iii) to (x) In very few cases does the Department require the General Contractor to list on the tender form all the names of the subcontractors they propose using. A cost breakdown by work subdivision, as provided by the General Contractor, is attached including the names of those trades which were required to be listed.
5 and 6. The contractual arrangements are directly between the Department and the General Contractor. Consequently the matter of performance bonds and insurance for subcontractors is the sole responsibility of the General Contractor.
Cost breakdown by trades Construction of building no. 2, greenbelt farm- contract 9C-00904
Excavation and Grading	$ 4,718
Asphalt Paving (Choctaw Paving Construction)	965
Fencing (Lundy Fencing Co. Ltd.)	2,760
Concrete Work	5,420
Miscellaneous Metals (Carleton Iron Works Ltd.)	4,573
Carpentry	7,693
Insulation	1,524
Metal Siding and Roofing	2,251
Caulking and Weatherstripping	100
Doors and Frames	1,395
Glass and Glazing	70
Painting (F. Rosinski and Sons Ltd.)	2,790
Finishing Hardware	1,150
Metal Lockers (The Pedlar People Ltd.)	145
Toilet Accessories	200
Mechanical (W. B. Walsh)	24,500
Electrical (F. G. Bowie)	9,348
Preliminaries	9,398


PUBLIC WORKS-DRAINAGE CONTROL, GREENBELT FARM
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Were tenders called for contract 8C-09943, November 6, 1968, Drainage control, Greenbelt Farm and, if so (a) what was the number of bids received (b) what was the highest and what was
September 8, 1971

the lowest (c) what bid was accepted (d) how was the notice of tender publicized?
2.	If no tenders were submitted, what was the reason?
3.	Who was awarded the contract?
4.	If the Department of Public Works executed the contract (a) what was the cost of (i) architectural supervision (ii) engineering supervision (iii) excavation (iv) foundation (v) super structure roofing contractor and concrete supplier (vi) masonry construction (vii) interior divisions plastering and interior finish partition (viii) heating and air conditioning (ix) electrical wiring (x) plumbing and heating (b) by whom was same done?
5.	Who was the bonding company for sub contracts?
6.	With whom was the insurance placed for sub trades?


Arthur Laing: 1. Yes, (a) Four tenders were received and opened on November 5, 1968, (b) Highest tender, $68,823; lowest tender, $41,770. (c) Lowest tender, (d) Public advertisement-Newspapers: Ottawa and Hull.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Gordon Mulligan Construction.
4.	(a) (i) None, (ii) $2,500.-Estimated cost of Engineering supervision by Department of Public Works, (a) and (b) (iii) to (x) In very few cases does the Department require the General Contractor to list on the tender form all the names of the subcontractors they propose using. A cost breakdown by work subdivision, as provided by the General Contractor, is attached including the names of those trades which were required to be listed.
5 and 6. The contractual arrangements are directly between the Department and the General Contractor. Consequently the matter of performance bonds and insurance for subcontractors is the sole responsibility of the General Contractor.
Cost Breakdown
Drainage Control, Greenbelt Farm Contract 8C-09943
Soil to be picked up, transported up to 1 mile, placed in ditches to be filled
and levelled Truck hauling, including loading, hauling up to three miles, dumping from	$21,000
windrows and pits Bulldozer rental (D-8 or equivalent	10,000
150D.B.H.P. Min.)	5,200
Backhoe rental (34 cu. yd.)	250
Scraper rental (21 cu. yd.)	600
Grader rental (115 H.P. Min.) Tree removal (and stumps)	160
(a) 6 to 12 inches	750
(b) 12 to 18 inches	1,500
(c) 18 to 24 inches	1,500
(d) 24 inches and over	500
Equipment float trips	200
Truck overhaul over three miles	10
Removal of culvert	100



PUBLIC WORKS-POWER SUPPLY, NATIONAL REVENUE HEADQUARTERS AND DATA CENTRE

["1. Yes.\n2. The Canadian Government regards the delineation of recognized boundaries as an essential element in the formulation of the just and lasting peace settlement envisaged by Security Council Resolution 242, the achievement of which remains the objective of continuing efforts by the UN Secretary-General's special representative as provided for by that Resolution.", 'September 8, 1971\nOrders for Returns']
Arthur Laing: 1. Yes, (a) Seven tenders were received and opened on May 14, 1968. (b) Highest tender, $203,824.; lowest tender, $183,292. (c) Lowest tender, (d) Public advertisement-Newspapers: Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa and Hull; La Voix de la Construction, Montreal; Daily Commercial News, Toronto; Heavy Construction News, Toronto.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Concord (Ottawa) Electrical Contractors Limited.
4.	(a) (i) None, (ii) $4,504.-J. Lunde, Consulting Engineer. (a) and (b) (iii) to (x) In very few cases does the Department require the General Contractor to list on the tender form all the names of the subcontractors they propose using. A cost breakdown by work subdivision, as provided by the General Contractor, is attached including the names of those trades which were required to be listed.
5 and 6. The contractual arrangements are directly between the Department and the General Contractor. Consequently the matter of performance bonds and insurance for subcontractors is the sole responsibility of the General Contractor.
Cost Breakdown by Trades Power Supply to National Revenue Headquarters and Data Centre -Contract 8C-00733
3C 350 Power Cable	$45,700
New 15KV Switchgear	51,000
New 5KV Switchgear	6,000
Federal Pacific 15KV Switchgear	30,000
Federal Pacific 5KV Switchgear	5,000
Pothead Connections on above	2,092
Cement Floor and Partition Rprs	3,500
4000KVA Transformer	19,000
Misc. Power Cable	4,000
Work in Manholes and Duct System	2,000
Hydro Allowance	15,000



Mr. Paproski: 1.	Were tenders called for contract 8C-01656, April 25, 1968, Renovations Phase 5, Government Printing Bureau and, if so (a) what was the number of bids received (b) what was the highest and what was the lowest (c) what bid was accepted (d) how was the notice of tender publicized?
2.	If no tenders were submitted, what was the reason?

September 8, 1971
Questions
3.	Who was awarded the contract?
4.	If the Department of Public Works executed the contract (a) what was the cost of (i) architectural supervision (ii) engineering supervision (iii) excavation (iv) foundation (v) super structure roofing contractor and concrete supplier (vi) masonry construction (vii) interior divisions plastering and interior finish partition (viii) heating and air conditioning (ix) electrical wiring (x) plumbing and heating (b) by whom was same done?
5.	Who was the bonding company for sub contracts?
6.	With whom was the insurance placed for sub trades?


Arthur Laing: 1. Yes, (a) Nine tenders were received and opened on March 19, 1968. (b) Highest tender, $780,000.; lowest tender, $581,548. (Low bidder withdrew their tender subsequent to the opening of tenders) (c) Second lowest tender, (d) Public advertisement-Newspapers: Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa and Hull; La Voix de la Construction, Montreal; Daily Commercial News, Toronto; Heavy Construction News, Toronto.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Beaudoin Construction Limited-Contract amount $592,343.
4.	(a) (i) and (ii) $21,431.-Belasky, Renaud and Associates, Consulting Engineers $8,156.-Clerk of Works, (a) and (b) (iii) to (x) In very few cases does the Department require the General Contractor to list on the tender form all the names of the subcontractors they propose using. A cost breakdown by work subdivision, as provided by the General Contractor, is attached including the names of those trades which were required to be listed.
5 and 6. The contractual arrangements are directly between the Department and the General Contractor. Consequently the matter of performance bonds and insurance for subcontractors is the sole responsibility of the General Contractor.
Cost Breakdown by Trades Renovations Phase 5,
Government Printing Bureau Contract 8C-01656
Mechanical (La Cie de Plomberie et Chauffage Gendron Limitee)	$142,633.00
Electrical (La Cie Univex (Que.) Limitee)	82,890.00
Acoustic Ceilings (Parcoustic Specialists Ltd.)	57,785.00
Resilient Floor Covering (Stradwick's Ltd.)	12,730.00
Finishing Hardware (B. & M. Fortin Hardware) 6,290.00 Movable Metal Partitions (Marbeau Enterprises Ltd.)	96,867.00
Glazed Partition (Hull Glass Ltd.)	1,158.00
Relocation of Equipment (John M. Blocklesby Transport)	54,000.00
Wood Door and Frames (Steenbakers Lumber Ltd.) 340.00 Venetian Blinds (Vaillancourt Agencies)	712.95
Folding Doors (Ambico Sales Ltd.)	1,420.00
Metal Lockers (The Pedlar People Ltd.)	3,092.42
General Items including carpentry, joinery, etc., overhead and profit	132,424.63
PUBLIC WORKS-CONSTRUCTION OF V/STOL WIND TUNNEL, UPLANDS


Mr. Paproski: 1.	Were tenders called for contract 8C-00920, April 9, 1968, Construction of V/STOL Wind Tunnel, Uplands and, if so (a) what was

the number of bids received (b) what was the highest and what was the lowest (c) what bid was accepted (d) how was the notice of tender publicized?
2.	If no tenders were submitted, what was the reason?
3.	Who was awarded the contract?
4.	If the Department of Public Works executed the contract (a) what was the cost of (i) architectural supervision (ii) engineering supervision (iii) excavation (iv) foundation (v) super structure roofing contractor and concrete supplier (vi) masonry construction (vii) interior divisions plastering and interior finish partition (viii) heating and air conditioning (ix) electrical wiring (x) plumbing and heating (b) by whom was same done?
5.	Who was the bonding company for sub contracts?
6.	With whom was the insurance placed for sub trades?


Arthur Laing: 1. Yes, (a) Sixteen tenders were received and opened on March 5, 1968. (b) Highest tender, $947,000.; lowest tender, $763,092. (c) Lowest tender, (d) Public advertisement-Newspapers: Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa and Hull. La Voix de la Construction, Montreal; Daily Commercial News, Toronto; Heavy Construction News, Toronto.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Conwood Construction Limited-Contract amount $765,592. (The tender documents required bidders to list separately a price to be added to their tender amount should the Department decide to use an alternate type of electrical equipment in lieu of the type specified. The difference between the low tender price and actual contract amount is the result of the acceptance of this substitution.)
4.	(a) (i) None, (ii) $33,448.-Dilworth, Secord, Meagher and Associates, Consulting Engineers. $18,000-Clerk of Works (Resident Site Engineer). $175.-Roof Inspection (J. Lumz). (a) and (b) (iii) to (x) In very few cases does the Department require the General Contractor to list on the tender form all the names of the subcontractors they propose using. A cost breakdown by work subdivision, as provided by the General Contractor, is attached including the names of those trades which were required to be listed.
5 and 6. The contractual arrangements are directly between the Department and the General Contractor. Consequently the matter of performance bonds and insurance for subcontractors is the sole responsibility of the General Contractor.
Cost Breakdown by Trades Construction of V/STOL Wind Tunnel, Uplands
Contract 8C-00920
Excavation	$ 8,000.
Services	19,600.
Formwork	12,000.
Concrete	24,000.
Backfill, Compaction	8,000.
Structural Steel (Canada Iron)	65,000.
Formwork	28,000.
Concrete	24,000.
Precast Concrete	4,600.
Roof Decks (Robertson-Irwin Ltd.)	4,000.
Metal Cladding (Robertson-Irwin Ltd.)	45,000.
Windows, Doors, Glazing, etc. (C.P.I., Ramsay
Industries, and R.S. Metal Works)	17,000.
Exposed Concrete Finishes	6,000.
September 8, 1971

Roofing, Insulation (Irving Contracting Ltd.)	4,100.
Caulking, Weatherstripping (McBride)	1,200.
Interior Masonry	8,000.
HM Door, Frames, Misc. Metal	24,000.
Lath, Plaster, Acoustic Tile	6,200.
Millwork, Manufactured Speclt.	1,962.
Ceramics, Floor Finishes	2,500.
Hardware (W. A. Rankin)	3,500.
Infinite Access Flooring	6,800.
Overhead Crane (Legere Engineering)	14,600.
Interior Painting	3,200.
REM System	22'oOO.
Insulation	10,000.
Controls	32,000.
Control Wiring	12,000.
Refrigeration	5,000.
Mechanical Equipment	60,000.
Labour	40 nsn
Material	90^000!
Underground Ducts and Manholes	12,000.
Switchboard, primary cables	36^000.
Distribution Panels, Feeders	15,980.
Transformer, Voltage Regulator	6,000.
Motor Control Centre, Wiring	16,000.
Branch Circuit and System Wiring	8,000.
Fixtures, Lamps, Devices	s'oOO.
Grading, Seeding, Sodding (Dibblee Construction '
Ltd-)	6,000.
Sub Base, Paving (Dibblee Construction Ltd.) 3,500. General Conditions	32,000.


PUBLIC WORKS-TUNNEY'S PASTURE-ADDITION TO ANIMAL BREEDING BUILDING
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Were tenders called for contract CR-67-2789, January 31, 1968, Addition to Animal Breeding Building and, if so (a) what was the number of bids received (b) what was the highest and what was the lowest (c) what bid was accepted (d) how was the notice of tender publicized?
2.	If no tenders were submitted, what was the reason?
3.	Who was awarded the contract?
4.	If the Department of Public Works executed the contract (a) what was the cost of (i) architectural supervision (ii) engineering supervision (iii) excavation (iv) foundation (v) super structure roofing contractor and concrete supplier (vi) masonry construction (vii) interior divisions plastering and interior finish partition (viii) heating and air conditioning (ix) electrical wiring (x) plumbing and heating (b) by whom was same done?
5.	Who was the bonding company for sub contracts?
6.	With whom was the insurance placed for sub trades?


Arthur Laing: 1. Yes, (a) Thirteen tenders were received and opened on January 23, 1968. (b) Highest tender, $1,179,186.; lowest tender, $849,847. (c) Lowest tender, (d) Public advertisement- Newspapers: Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa and Hull; La Voix de la Construction, Montreal; Daily Commercial News, Toronto; Heavy Construction News, Toronto.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Pollock-McGibbon Limited.
Questions
4.	(a) (i) $8,500. Estimated cost of Architectural supervision by Department of Public Works, (ii) $9,364. J. Klassen and Associates-Mechanical Supervision; 2,332. J. Lunde, Consulting Engineer-Electrical Supervision; 2,298. Clerk of Works, (a) and (b) (iii) to (x) In very few cases does the Department require the General Contractor to list on the tender form all the names of the subcontractors they propose using. A cost breakdown by work subdivision, as provided by the General Contractor, is attached including the names of those trades which were required to be listed.
5.	and 6. The contractual arrangements are directly between the Department and the General Contractor. Consequently the matter of performance bonds and insurance for subcontractors is the sole responsibility of the General Contractor.
Cost Breakdown by Trades
Addition to Animal Breeding Building, Tunney's Pasture -Contract CR-67-2789
Bonds and Permits	$ 8,500.
General Conditions	28,615.
Excavation	2,190.
Concrete and Formwork	21,154.
Carpentry	13,000.
Masonry	62,450.
Structural Steel (L. Pickard Ltd.)	41,000.
Steel Roof Deck	5,685.
Precast Concrete Facing (Prefac Company)	36,200.
Roofing and Sheet Metal (T. Welch)	14,165.
Miscellaneous Metals	6,986.
Metal Doors and Frames	3,450.
Insulation	7,000.
Terrazzo (Union Tile)	18,800.
Acoustic Ceilings	4,900.
Lath and Plaster (Murphy & Morrow)	8,170.
Toilet Partitions	515.
Steel Shelving and Lockers	1,237.
Laboratory Equipment (Can Lab)	10,720.
Shielded Instrument Room	7,365.
Elevator	9,500.
Mechanical (Univex (Canada) Ltd.)	412,900.
Electrical (John Colford Contracting)	96,543.
Glazing	754.
Paving	545.
Millwork and Doors	5,943.
Finishing Hardware (Canadian Hardware)	12,000.
Painting (F. Grodde Ltd.)	9,560.


PUBLIC WORKS-RENOVATION OF OED DOMINION ARCHIVES BUILDING
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Were tenders called for contract CR-67-2, November 23, 1967, Renovation of old Dominion Archives Building and, if so (a) what was the number of bids received (b) what was the highest and what was the lowest (c) what bid was accepted (d) how was the notice of tender publicized?
2.	If no tenders were submitted, what was the reason?
3.	Who was awarded the contract?
4.	If the Department of Public Works executed the contract (a) what was the cost of (i) architectural supervision (ii) engineering supervision (iii) excavation (iv) foundation (v) super structure roofing contractor and concrete supplier (vi) masonry construction

September 8, 1971
Questions
(vii) interior divisions plastering and interior finish partition (viii) heating and air conditioning (ix) electrical wiring (x) plumbing and heating (b) by whom was same done?
5.	Who was the bonding company for sub contracts?
6.	With whom was the insurance placed for sub trades?


Arthur Laing: 1. Yes, (a) Ten tenders were received and opened on March 15, 1967. (b) Highest tender, $217,643.; lowest tender, $181,000. (c) Lowest tender, (d) Public advertisement-Newspapers: Ottawa and Hull.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	L. Zuccarini Contractors Limited.
4.	(a) (i) $5,649. - James W. Strutt, Architect, (ii) None, (a) and (b) (iii) to (x) In very few cases does the Department require the General Contractor to list on the tender form all the names of the subcontractors they propose using. A cost breakdown by work subdivision, as provided by the General Contractor, is attached including the names of those trades which were required to be listed,
5 and 6. The contractual arrangements are directly between the Department and the General Contractor. Consequently the matter of performance bonds and insurance for subcontractors is the sole responsibility of the General Contractor.
Cost Breakdown by Trades Renovation of Old Dominion Archives Building Contract CR-67-2
General Expenses	$10,000.
Carpentry	10,000.
Excavation and Concrete-Asphalt	3,000.
Reinforcing	500.
Demolition	4,000.
Masonry	8,000.
Kalamein Doors	16,000.
Carpets	15,454.
Resilient Flooring	10,000.
Miscellaneous Metal	6,000.
Hardware	4,515.
Glass and Glazing	1,146.
Plumbing	11,620.
Ceramic Tile	4,000.
Plastering	23,370.
Suspending Ceiling Tile	2,695.
Electrical	39,000.
Painting	9,000.
Venetian Blinds	2,700.


PUBLIC WORKS-CONVERSION OF HEATING PLANT, PLOUFFE PARK
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Were tenders called for contract CR-67-2723, August 28, 1967, Conversion of heating plant to gas, Plouffe Park and, if so (a) what was the number of bids received (b) what was the highest and what was the lowest (c) what bid was accepted (d) how was the notice of tender publicized?
2.	If no tenders were submitted, what was the reason?
3.	Who was awarded the contract?
4.	If the Department of Public Works executed the contract (a) what was the cost of (i) architectural supervision (ii) engineering supervision (iii) excavation (iv) foundation (v) super structure roofing contractor and concrete supplier (vi) masonry construction (vii) interior divisions plastering and interior finish partition (viii)
[Mr. Laing.)
heating and air conditioning (ix) electrical wiring (x) plumbing and heating (b) by whom was same done?
5.	Who was the bonding company for sub contracts?
6.	With whom was the insurance placed for sub trades?


Arthur Laing: 1. No, (a), (b), (c) and (d) Not applicable.
2.	Competitive tenders were not called because The Consumer's Gas Company is the most suitable firm to perform a contract of this specialized nature in the Ottawa area.
3.	The Consumer's Gas Company-Contract Amount $88,863.
4.	(a) (i) None, (ii) $350.-Estimated cost of Engineering Supervision by Department of Public Works.
(a) and (b) (iii) to (x) In very few cases does the Department require the General Contractor to list on the tender form all the names of the subcontractors they propose using. A cost breakdown by work subdivision, as provided by the General Contractor, is attached including the names of those trades which were required to be listed.
5 and 6. The contractual arrangements are directly between the Department and the General Contractor. Consequently the matter of performance bonds and insurance for subcontractors is the sole responsibility of the General Contractor.
Cost Breakdown by Trades Conversion of Heating Plant to Gas, Plouffe Park -Contract CR-67-2723
Burners	$13,100.
Dismantling stokers, steel work	2,100.
Duplex pump set	3,900.
Piping system	17,400.
Bailey Motor system	25,850.
Refractory	8,500.
Oil storage	2,700.
Electrical components and wiring	3,900.
Erection: Shipping	1,700.
Painting identification	1,250.
Supervision: Instruction: Service: Permits	1,550.
Engineering: Drawings	2,400.
Mechanical items	1,550.
General Contracting work	2,963.


PUBLIC WORKS-CONSTRUCTION OF HEADQUARTERS AND DATA CENTRE, DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Were tenders called for contract CR-67-2744, August 18, 1967, Construction of Headquarters Building and Data Centre for the Department of National Revenue and, if so (a) what was the number of bids received (b) what was the highest and what was the lowest (c) what bid was accepted (d) how was the notice of tender publicized?
2.	If no tenders were submitted, what was the reason?
3.	Who was awarded the contract?
4.	If the Department of Public Works executed the contract (a) what was the cost of (i) architectural supervision (ii) engineering supervision (iii) excavation (iv) foundation (v) super structure roofing contractor and concrete supplier (vi) masonry construction (vii) interior divisions plastering and interior finish partition (viii) heating and air conditioning (ix) electrical wiring (x) plumbing and heating (b) by whom was same done?
September 8, 1971

5.	Who was the bonding company for sub contracts?
6.	With whom was the insurance placed for sub trades?


Arthur Laing: 1. Yes, (a) Six tenders were received and opened on July 5, 1967, (b) Highest tender, $18,647,000.; lowest tender, $17,981,000. (c) Lowest tender, (d) Public advertisement-Newspapers: Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa and Hull; Daily Commercial News, Toronto; Heavy Construction News, Toronto; La Voix de la Construction, Montreal.
2.	Not Applicable.
3.	The Foundation Company of Canada Limited.
4.	(a) (i) and (ii) $394,350-Page & Steel and Moody, Moore & Partners; $57,375-Inspection Services-Piling (McRostie, Seto, Genest); $4,250-Consultant Inspection, Roofing (J. R. Fitter); $25,971-Staff; $68,333-Clerk of Works, (a) and (b) (iii) to (x) In very few cases does the Department require the General Contractor to list on the tender form all the names of the subcontractors they propose using. A cost breakdown by work subdivisions, as provided by the General Contractor, is attached including the names of those trades which were required to be listed.
5 and 6. The contractual arrangements are directly between the Department and the General Contractor. Consequently the matter of performance bonds and insurance for subcontractors is the sole responsibility of the General Contractor.
Cost Breakdown by Trades
Construction of Headquarters Building and Data Centre, Department of National Revenue-Contract


CR-67-2744
[Stage Direction]
Bonds, Permits etc.	$ 200,000.
General Conditions	957,840.
Excavation	728,728.
Piling (Petrifond)	1,927,000.
Reinforcing Steel	1,192,600.
Concrete	2,126,424.
Precast Concrete	401,500.
Structural Steel	4,924.
Steel Deck	561.
Masonry	420,357.
Roofing and Waterproofing (Heather and Little)	439,875.
Carpentry	136,994.
Miscellaneous and Ornamental Iron	183,848.
Hollow Metal	65,217.
Movable Office Partitions	410,000.
Metal Windows	400,000.
Wall Insulation	117,830.
Lathing and Plastering (Cesoromi Brothers
Ltd.)	240,000.
Acoustic (Canadian	Johns-Manville)	333,930.
Resilient Floor Finishing	171,700.
Tile and Terrazzo	68,500.
Questions
Caulking	10,000.
Glass and Glazing	80,000.
Painting	68,096.
Special Wall Finishing	36,500.
Finishing Hardware (W. A.	Rankin	Ltd.)	83,772.Elevators (Otis Elevator Co.	Ltd.)	640,000.Special Equipment	683,134.
Heating, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration
(John Colford Contracting Co. Ltd.)	3,282,000.
Plumbing and Fixtures	805,000.
Rerouting Existing Services	294,000.
Electrical (Canadian International Comstock Co- Ltd.)	1,216,170.
Kitchen Equipment (Rideau	Aluminum Ltd.) 225,000.
Cleaning	29,500.

Mr. Paproski: 1.	Were tenders called for contract CR-67-2721, August 17, 1967, Construction of Buildings 9E and 11, Greenbelt Farm and, if so (a) what was the number of bids received (b) what was the highest and what was the lowest (c) what bid was accepted (d) how was the notice of tender publicized?
2.	If no tenders were submitted, what was the reason?
3.	Who was awarded the contract?
4.	If the Department of Public Works executed the contract (a) what was the cost of (i) architectural supervision (ii) engineering supervision (iii) excavation (iv) foundation (v) super structure roofing contractor and concrete supplier (vi) masonry construction (vii) interior divisions plastering and interior finish partition (viii) heating and air conditioning (ix) electrical wiring (x) plumbing and heating (b) by whom was same done?
5.	Who was the bonding company for sub contracts?
6.	With whom was the insurance placed for sub trades?


Arthur Laing: 1. Yes, (a) Six tenders were received and opened on June 27, 1967. (b) Highest tender, $339,390.; lowest tender, $278,700. (Based on the previous performance of the low bidder, Treasury Board approved the rejection of the low tender.) (c) Second lowest tender, (d) Public advertisement- Newspapers: Ottawa and Hull; Daily Commercial News, Toronto.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Cooper-Ellis Limited-Contract amount $299,374.
4- (a) (i) and (ii) $7,681. Brais, Ouellette, Frigon, Brett, Hanley and Berthiaume, Consulting Engineers, (a) and (b) (iii) to (x) In very few cases does the Department require the General Contractor to list on the tender form all the names of the subcontractors they propose using. A cost breakdown by work subdivision, as provided by the General Contractor, is attached including the names of those trades which were required to be listed.
5 and 6. The contractual arrangements are directly between the Department and the General Contractor. Consequently the matter of performance bonds and insurance for subcontractors is the sole responsibility of the General Contractor.
7606

September 8, 1971
Questions
Cost Breakdown by Trades
Construction of Buildings 9E and 11, Greenbelt Farm -Contract CR-67-2721
Excavation, Grading and Backfill	$15,374.
Services, Excavation, Backfill	6,000.
Concrete	95,000.
Culverts, Sealcote, Final Grading	3,000.
Precast Concrete	20,000.
Conveyors and Feeders	10,000.
Insulation	6,000.
Stall Installations	15,000.
Rough Carpentry	45,000.
Finish Carpentry and Hardware	31,000.
Mechanical (Rene Cleroux Limited)	23,000.
Electrical (R. E. Ferguson Limited)	13,000.
Roofing and Siding (Ideal Roofing and Siding,	
Ottawa)	17,000.
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND-TOTAL PAYMENTS


FOR YEARS 1967 TO 1971
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,206-Mr. Mazankowski:	
What were the total payments, by month, for the fiscal years	
1967-68, 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71 from the	Unemployment
Insurance Fund?
Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Payments by	
month from the Unemployment Insurance Fund:	
Month Year	Amount
1967-68	
April	$ 47,427,200.00
May	37,300,168.21
June	18,049,529.46
July	17,841,959.70
August	16,984,883.00
September	15,870,832.00
October	15,632,404.00
November	20,034,444.00
December	26,673,682.00
January/68	50,882,859.00
February	59,638,230.00
March	63,927,013.00
Total year 1967-68	$390,263,204.37
1968-69	
April	$ 56,441,871.00
May	46,428,975.00
June	23,579,459.00
July	19,022,541.00
August	26,296,208.00
September	20,907,464.00
October	21,016,521.00
November	20,769,096.00
December	30,921,697.00
January/69	61,366,836.00
February	67,587,036.00
[Mr. Laing.l
March	66,619,336.00
Total year 1968-69	$460,957,040.00
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January/70
February
March

Total year 1969-70

April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January/71
February
March

Total year 1970-71


$761,912,519.00 INCOME DERIVED FROM COMPUTER SERVICES
Mr. Robinson: What income, if any, is derived from the computer services provided by the Department of Supply and Services and Receiver General of Canada (a) from other departments (b) from sale or services to industry (c) to provincial government departments (d) to municipalities?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: In so far as the Department of Supply and Services and the Receiver General of Canada are concerned: (a) $2,069,256 (1970-1971); (b) to (d) none.


SALE OF DEFENCE COMMODITIES BY CANADIAN ARSENALS LTD.
Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 1.	Has any of Article 1, FSC Code 1365 (incendiary mixtures) listed in the Defence Commodity Catalogue of 1970 been sold by Canadian Arsenals Ltd. to American companies and, if so (a) what quantities (b) to which companies?
2.	What countries purchase defence commodities from Canada?
3.	What terms of sale, if any, apply to the future use of such commodities by these countries?
4.	Are guarantees required on the resale to other countries of weapons systems involving Canadian made components and, if so, what are they?
September 8, 1971


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: 1. In so far as the Canadian Arsenals Limited is concerned, no.
2.	In so far as the Canadian Commercial Corporation is concerned: Australia, Belgium, Botswana, Brazil, Britain, Burma, Brunei, Denmark, France, The Federal Republic of Germany, India, Kenya, Malaysia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Portugal, Singapore, Zambia, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States of America. In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: In addition to the countries indicated above, the following countries made direct purchases from Canadian companies during the calendar year 1970: Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Finland, Ghana, Greece, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Muscat and Oman, Panama, Peru, Republic of South Africa (terminated 2 November 1970), Spain and Tanzania.
3.	Terms of sale to foreign governments regarding future use of Canadian defence commodities are governed by the following conditions: (a) commodities manufactured under licence or developed as cooperative research, development and production projects, require the consent of codevelopers both as to the sale and restrictions on disposal to third countries, (b) where an export permit is required under the Export and Import Permits Act, the applicant in his application is required to state the country in which the goods are to be consumed or finally remain, after satisfying himself as far as reasonably possible that the goods will enter into the economy of such country and will not be transshipped or diverted therefrom.
4.	Except as indicated in 3 no restrictions are placed on the resale to other countries of weapon systems containing Canadian made components.


SAFE LEVEL OF HEAVY METALS IN THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Harding: Are studies being conducted by the government in regard to the safe level for the various heavy metals in the environment and, if so, what are they?


Eymard G. Corbin: Yes, they are: (i) studies of physiological and toxicological effects of methyl mercury on freshwater fish; (ii) nutritional studies on chickens, hogs, and mink using rations of known mercury content; examination of tissue levels of mercury; and influence on behaviour, physiology, fertility, and hatchability; (iii) determination of rates of accumulation and loss of metal contaminants in marine and anadromous fishes, and lethal concentrations; studies of biochemical and physiological effects and indicators of sublethal exposure, for examole, enzymes, endocrine changes; (iv) development of bioassay using a tissue culture system to determine sensitivity to heavy metals; (v) study of interactions of heavy metals with organic macromolecules, such as humic substances, and with suspended matter and sediments, and of their biological effects; (vi) a laboratory study recently completed and field studies still underway to relate mercury residue levels in eggs of birds to the degree of success in hatching or of survival of young. Research has concentrated on identifying levels of mercury in the environment that are or are not harmful to bird reproduction,
24171-61 j
Questions
because this is the most sensitive point of influence; and, (vii) a laboratory study recently completed showing what levels of mercury in the diet of hawks lead to direct poisoning.


DEMAND FOR CANADIAN WATER
Mr. Harding: 1.	Are studies or inventories now in progress on the supplies and potential demands for Canadian water and, if so, what are they?
2.	Is water currently being exported to the United States and, if so (a) in what amounts (b) where are such exports being made (c) what are the fees received?


Eymard G. Corbin: 1. Studies of water supply which include quantity, quality, distribution and regime are in progress nationally and regionally. Approximately 2,500 active gauging stations are now maintained to provide records of flows and levels of Canada's rivers and lakes. In addition, the Water Survey operates almost 600 stations which record tides, ground water levels, water quality and precipitation. No comprehensive studies are underway on a nation-wide basis to forecast potential water demands in Canada, although these are being planned.
2. The only case of water export known, a local arrangement, involves two small neighbouring communities in New Brunswick and Maine. St. Stephen, New Brunswick, sells 0.6 m.g.d. (million gallons per day) of its groundwater supplies at $55 m.g. to the Calais Water and Power Company in Maine. One quarter of this amount returns across the border to Milltown, New Brunswick.


ASSISTANCE TO PROVINCE OF NEWFOUNDLAND FOR AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Marshall: Has the Province of Newfoundland applied to the federal government for assistance under the Department of Transport to establish air landing strips at (a) Cartwright (b) Mary's Harbour (c) Springdale (d) Grand Falls (e) Wesleyville (f) Bonavista (g) Catalina (h) Winterland (i) Harbour Breton (j) Channel (k) Port-aux-Basques and, if so, what assistance will be given?


Gérard Duquet: Newfoundland Provincial authorities have made enquiries to the Atlantic Region of the Canadian Air Transportation Administration, Department of Transport, concerning the possibility of obtaining technical and/or financial assistance in respect of the above mentioned locations. The Provincial authorities in cooperation with officials of the Air Administration are presently investigating the technical feasibilities of establishing airports in these locations.


DOLLAR VALUE OF ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT AUTO PARTS MADE IN CANADA
Mr. Hales: 1.	What is the dollar value of the original equipment auto parts made in Canada for each year since 1962?
2.	What is the percentage of these parts of the total North American (U.S. and Canada) car and truck production?
3.	What is the percentage of these parts of the total Canadian car and truck production?

September 8, 1971
Questions
4.	Is Canada's share of the OEM production increasing or decreasing?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1. The dollar value of shipments of all parts from Canadian motor vehicle parts manufacturers for each year since 1962 en $ Millions is as follows: 1962, 436.3; 1963, 544.9; 1964, 627.9; 1965, 755.6; 1966, 860.5; 1967, 912.4; 1968, 1,193.8; 1969, 1,387.9; 1970, 1,208.2. These figures include all parts, original equipment and others. Statistics Canada does not provide a breakdown for original equipment parts only. The foregoing values indicate the total ex-factory selling price.
2.	It is not possible to provide an answer to this question because OEM and aftermarket parts production are not segregated in this manner in official published figures.
3.	It is not possible to provide an answer to this question because OEM and aftermarket parts production are not segregated in this manner in official published figures.
4.	Assuming that the proportion of OEM production in relation to the total production of parts is relatively constant throughout the period, Canada's share has increased.


RE-ORGANIZATION OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION
Mr. Fairweather: 1.	Is the Unemployment Insurance Commission undergoing reorganization and, if so, how is New Brunswick affected?
2.	What city will be designated the "parent" office?
3.	What cities are designated "satellite" offices?
4.	Will Saint John, the largest industrial city in New Brunswick, be designated a "parent" office and, if not, how many of the Saint John staff will have to move?
5.	What are the criteria used to designate a particular city a "parent" office or a "satellite" office?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: 1. Implementation of the new Unemployment Insurance Act will require significant changes in the administrative system. To meet the requirements of the new system, we plan to open 60 to 65 information centres across the country. There is no question of closing offices which already exist or of laying off personnel. Like the other Canadian provinces, New Brunswick will be affected by this change. In fact it will have nine offices instead of the present four.
2.	Moncton.
3.	Besides the Moncton office, there will be offices in Bathurst, Fredericton, Saint John, Campbellton, Edmundston, Woodstock, Newcastle and St. Stephen to serve the population of New Brunswick. Claims made at those offices will be processed in Moncton.
4.	Saint John was not designated as the "parent" office: (a) present staff, 31; (b) after reorganization, 16.
5.	To determine the nature of services to be provided in a given region, the following criteria were taken into account: number of claims made, number of active claimants, number of requests for information, availability of premises, distance from "parent" office, means of communication, and so on.
N.B. The term "satellite office" is used within the Commission only. It serves to designate an office with all the usual services except processing of claims.


TRANSPORT-CHRISTENING OF TWO FERRIES FOR USE BETWEEN NEW BRUNSWICK AND PEI
Mr. Coates: 1.	Was a federal government aircraft used for the purpose of transporting passengers to the christening at Port Weller, Ontario of two ferries for use between the Province of New Brunswick and the Province of Prince Edward Island and, if so (a) what were the names of the passengers transported (b) what was the basis for supplying the transportation (c) how long was the plane in use for this purpose (d) what was the total mileage involved and the cost to the federal government?
2.	Were any Members of the House of Commons involved in the ceremonies associated with the christening and, if so, which Members?
3.	Were invitations extended to Members of the House of Commons representing Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick and, if not, for what reasons?


Gérard Duquet: 1. Yes, a federal government aircraft was used to carry Provincial representatives to Port Weller, Ontario, to the christening of Department of Transport ferries. The supplying of transportation was provided on the basis of the Province of Prince Edward Island sponsorship of one of the ships. The aircraft was used for 27 hours and flew 2100 N.M. at a cost of $2,537.50.
2.	Mr. James P. McNulty, M.P. for St. Catharines, Ontario acted as Chairman at the christening ceremonies.
3.	Invitations were extended to Members of Parliament in the area in which the shipyard is located.


P.E.I.-CHANGE IN NUMBER OF GUARANTEED LOANS
Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 1.	In Prince Edward Island since January of 1970, was an increase or decrease in the number of loans granted under the Small Businesses Loans Act, the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act and the Farm Improvement Loans Act?
2.	What are considered to be the reasons for these increases or decreases?
3.	Do any of these increases or decreases reflect long term trends?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: 1. Change in Guaranteed Loans-Prince Edward Island-1970 and First Quarter 1971.
[Mr. Hales.1
September 8, 1971

Program	No. Amount
Small Business Loans Act	
13	93,812Fisheries Improvement Loans Act	
65	122)460Farm Improvement Loans Act	
627	1,704,182
2 and 3. The statistics on guaranteed loans for P.E.I. show a fairly wide fluctuation from year to year, over the last ten years. It has, therefore, not been possible to determine whether there are specific reasons accounting for the changes in the number of loans since January, 1970, or whether changes simply represent further irregular fluctuations. Similarly, it is not possible to indicate at this time whether these changes reflect long term trends.
Increase or (Decrease) from 1969
No. Amount
*
5	(1,270)
34	57,584
(123)	(199,787)
Questions
First Quarter
No. Amount
t
2	6,214
20	46,399
92	220,279
Increase or (Decrease) from First Quarter 1970
No. Amount

(1)	(25,556)
(1)	(2,230)
6	22,357


NORTHERN ELECTRIC COMPANY-GOVERNMENT GRANT
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Did Northern Electric Company receive a grant from the government when it located in Kingston, Ontario and, if so (a) what was the amount (b) what were the conditions?


James Alexander Jerome: No.


AIR CANADA-SECTOR PLAN
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On what date was the sector plan introduced by Air Canada for air travel?
2.	Have estimates been made as to the reduction in passengers using air transportation as a result of the implementation of the sector plan?


Gérard Duquet: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. Assuming this relates to the charge of sector fares when stop-overs are required this came into effect March 6, 1971.
2. No.


RICHMOND COUNTY, QUEBEC-GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES TO 1975
Mr. Beaudoin: Is it the intention of the government to invest capital in Richmond County during the years 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974 and 1975 and, if so, for each government department or agency concerned, what is (a) the nature of the project (b) the probability of investment (c) the location concerned (d) the expected date for the beginning of operations (e) the monetary participation of the provincial and/or municipal governments?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Department of Public Works as follows: Yes,
(a) Project
New Federal Building Temporary Air Conditioning in Post Office
Improvements to Post Office Addition to Post Office
(b) Cost
5,891.00
32,079.04
(c) Location
Asbestos
Asbestos
Disraeli
Windsor
(d) Fiscal Year in which project scheduled to begin
(b) It is not customary to reveal estimated expenditures before a contract is awarded.
(e) No monetary participation between Federal, Provincial and Municipal Governments.
1970-71


DEER LAKE AIRPORT-ESTABLISHMENT OF ILS SYSTEM
Mr. Marshall: Is consideration being given to establishing an ILS system for the Deer Lake Airport and, if so, when is it proposed that such a system will be installed?


Gérard Duquet: Plans to instal an ILS system at the Deer Lake Airport were made known February 25, 1970 by the Minister of Transport. It is expected that such a system will be installed during the fiscal year of 1972-73.


ALLOCATION OF FUNDS UNDER TEMPORARY WHEAT RESERVES ACT
Mr. Burton: Has the government authorized an allocation of funds to the Canadian Wheat Board under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act with respect to wheat in storage on August 1, 1970 and, if so (a) on what date (b) in what amount?


Otto Emil Lang: Although funds were appropriated in the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1972, expenditures have not been authorized because the Government has a bill before the House to rescind the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act effective August 1, 1970.


PUBLIC WORKS-CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING No. 213, GREENBELT FARM
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Under contract No. 9C-07017, November 18, 1969, to construct Building No. 213, Greenbelt Farm, how many "extras" and change orders were authorized by the government?
2.	What was the amount and who gave the authorization?
3.	What was the reason for the substitution, deletion or addition of the extras?

September 8, 1971
Questions


Arthur Laing: 1. Two.
2.	Net addition to the contract authorized by the Department of Public Works was $241.58.
3.	One Change Order resulted from unforeseen job conditions and the other covered a change in Client requirements.


PUBLIC WORKS-ADDITION TO CENTRAL POULTRY TESTING STATION
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Under contract No. 9C-07054, November 13, 1969, for additions to Central Poultry Testing Station, Central Experimental Farm, how many "extras" and change orders were authorized by the government?
2.	What was the amount and who give the authorization?
3.	What was the reason for the substitution, deletion or addition of the extras?


Arthur Laing: 1. One.
2.	Net addition to the contract authorized by the Department of Public Works was $2,288.55.
3.	The Change Order was required as a result of actual rock conditions differing from those shown on the contract documents.


PUBLIC WORKS-POSTAL TERMINAL BUILDING AND RCMP COMPLEX HEATING SERVICES
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Under contract No. 9C-03915, November 12, 1969, for the heating services to Postal Terminal Building and RCMP complex, how many "extras" and change orders were authorized by the government?
2.	What was the amount and who gave the authorization?
3.	What was the reason for the substitution, deletion or addition of the extras?


Arthur Laing: 1.
Twenty-three.
2.	Net addition to the contract authorized by the Department of Public Works was $95,075.94.
3.	One Change Order was due to soil conditions, one was the result of a change in client requirements, fifteen resulted from unforeseen job conditions and six were the result of changes in design requirements.


PUBLIC WORKS-CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING NO. 45. GREENBELT FARM
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Under contract No. 9C-16228, October 30, 1969, to construct Building No. 45, Greenbelt Farm, how many "extras" and change orders were authorized by the government?
2.	What was the amount and who gave the authorization?
3.	What was the reason for the substitution, deletion or addition of the extras?


Arthur Laing: 1. Three.
2.	Net addition to the contract authorized by the Department of Public Works was $5,815.90.
3.	One Change Order was necessitated by site conditions, one resulted from a change in Client requirements and one was the result of unforeseen job conditions.


PUBLIC WORKS-CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING NO. 2, GREENBELT FARM
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Under contract No. 9C-00904, June 6, 1969, to construct Building No. 2, Greenbelt Farm, how many "extras" and change orders were authorized by the government?
2 What was the amount and who gave the authorization?
3.	What was the reason for the substitution, deletion or addition of the extras?


Arthur Laing: 1. Six.
2.	Net addition to the contract authorized by the Department of Public Works was $1,072.38.
3.	Four Change Orders resulted from unforeseen job conditions and two were the result of changes in client requirements.


PUBLIC WORKS-REVISIONS TO MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT. ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY, TUNNEY'S PASTURE
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Under contract No. 9C-01421, May 5, 1969 for the revisions to mechanical equipment, Environmental Laboratory, Tunney's Pasture, how many "extras" and change orders were authorized by the government?
2.	What was the amount and who gave the authorization?
3.	What was the reason for the substitution, deletion or addition of the extras?


Arthur Laing: 1. Six.
2.	Net credit value of changes authorized by the Department of Public Works was $505.
3.	Three Change Orders resulted from unforeseen job conditions, one resulted from revised Client requirements, one was requested by the Building Inspection Branch of the City of Ottawa and one was the result of change in the Department's requirements subsequent to the award of a contract.


PUBLIC WORKS-CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS 44B, 44C. GREENBELT FARM
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Under contract No. 8C-09954, January 13, 1969, to construct Buildings 44B, 44C, Greenbelt Farm, how many "extras" and change orders were authorized by the government?
2.	What was the amount and who gave the authorization?
3.	What was the reason for the substitution, deletion or addition of the extras?


Arthur Laing: 1.
Fifteen.
2.	Net addition to contract authorized by the Department of Public Works $25,221.47.
3.	Nine Change Orders resulted from unforeseen job conditions, five were the result of revised Client requirements and one covered unexpended provisional cash allowance on contract.


PUBLIC WORKS-DRAINAGE CONTROL. GREENBELT FARM
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Under contract No. 8C-09943, November 6, 1968, for the drainage control, Greenbelt Farm, how many "extras" and change orders were authorized by the government?

September 8, 1971

2.	What was the amount and who gave the authorization?
3.	What was the reason for the substitution, deletion or addition of the extras?


Arthur Laing: 1. None.
2 and 3. Not applicable.


PUBLIC WORKS-CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING NO. 28, GREENBELT FARM
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Under contract 8C-08992, November 6, 1968, to construct Building No. 28, Greenbelt Farm, how many "extras" and change orders were authorized by the government?
2.	What was the amount and who gave the authorization?
3.	What was the reason for the substitution, deletion or addition of the extras?


Arthur Laing: 1. Ten.
2.	Net addition to contract authorized by the Department was $13,615.12.
3.	Four Change Orders resulted from unforeseen job conditions, five were the result of a change in Client requirements and one covered changes in specialized equipment for Tray Washer.


PUBLIC WORKS-CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING NO. 8. GREENBELT FARM
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Under contract No. 8C-09915, November 5, 1968, to construct Building No. 8, Greenbelt Farm, how many "extras" and change orders were authorized by the government?
2 What was the amount and who gave the authorization?
3.	What was the reason for the substitution, deletion or addition of the extras?


Arthur Laing: 1.
Eleven.
2.	Net addition to the contract authorized by the Department was $8,836.20.
3.	One Change Order covered the Department's change in requirement, four resulted from unforeseen job conditions and six were the result of changes in Client requirements.


PUBLIC WORKS-COURSES HELD IN MIAMI, FLORIDA
Mr. Schumacher: 1.	Was there any registration fee involved for the officials of the Department of Public Works attending the course in Miami, Florida during April 18-24, 1971 and, if so, what was the amount of such fee per person attending?
2.	Did any expenses involve wives or families of those attending and, if so, what was the amount in each case?
3	What mode of transportation was involved for each of the persons attending the course?
4.	What mode of transportation was involved for anyone accompanying those persons attending the course?


Arthur Laing: 1. Yes,
$225 each (inclusive of registration, tuition and examination).
2. No.
Questions
3.	Six by air and one by private automobile (five cents per mile up to level of air fare).
4.	No record as no expense to the public involved.


OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-NUMBER OF PROJECTS SUBMITTED
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1 How many projects were submitted by Canadian students under the Opportunities for Youth Program from March 16 to May 31, 1971?
2.	By province, how many of the projects were accepted?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of Stale):: 1. Approximately 13,000 projects were submitted under the Opportunities for Youth program from March 16 to May 31, 1971.
2. By province, the following projects have been accepted: British Columbia, 291; Manitoba, 87; Alberta, 140; Saskatchewan, 105; Northwest Territories, 11; Ontario, 588; Quebec, 802; Prince Edward Island, 32; Newfoundland, 52; New Brunswick, 67; Nova Scotia, 129.


INCREASE OF EXPENDITURES ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT TO INDUSTRY AND UNIVERSITIES
Mr. Robinson: Will the government consider the advisability of allocating an increased percentage of research and development to industry above the 15 per cent now carried out in Canada, and that of universities above the 19 per cent presently carried out so that the government, universities and industries will all take a 1 part in research and development?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of The Treasury Board):: Yes.


PUBLIC WORKS-TENDERS FOR RENOVATION OF POST OFFICE IN SAINT-RAYMOND
Mr. Godin: During the past year, did the government call for tenders for renovation of the Post Office in Saint-Raymond, constituency of Portneuf and, if so (a) what was the nature of the work (b) who was in charge of the renovation (c) what were the total costs involved?


Arthur Laing: Yes, (a) Replacement of doors and frames, tiling and painting, (b) The Department of Public Works, (c) $3,755.


NUMBER OF CHARGES LAID AND CONVICTIONS UNDER CANADA SHIPPING ACT
Mr. Barnett: 1.	How many charges have been laid for violation of the regulations under the Canada Shipping Act for each of the past five years?
2.	How many convictions were obtained, and what were the fines levied?

September 8, 1971
Questions


Gérard Duquet: 1.
Year		Charges Laid
1966		158
1967		195
1968		1089
1969		1290
1970		1243
Year	Convictions Obtained Fines Levied	
*1966	157	$11,235.00**1967	192	19,025.00**1968	1055	35,240.001969	1258	32,699.741970	1207	93,898.00
*Not complete because a few of the smaller RCMP districts no longer have such records.
**Only a few of the RCMP districts were able to report because the majority of them have destroyed their records for these years.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND
Mr. Southam: 1.	What was the cash balance In the Unemployment Insurance Fund as of (a) May 31, 1969 (b) May 31, 1970 (c) May 31, 19717
2.	What were the benefit payments from the Fund for the months of (a) January, February, March, April, May, 1970 (b) January, February, March, April, May, 1971?
3.	What were the average number of people drawing benefits from the Fund for the months of (a) January, February, March, April, May, 1970 (b) January, February, March, April, May, 1971?
4.	What were the average weekly individual payments from the Fund for the months of January, February, March, April, May, 1971?
5.	How many people had filed claims on the Fund for the months of (a) January, February, March, April, May, 1970 (b) January, February, March, April, May, 1971?
6.	Of those unemployed making initial claims on the Fund, how many were not entitled to benefits for the months of January, February, March, April, May, 1971?


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I have here the return on this question. It is rather lengthy. I wonder if the House might consent that this reply be tabled and reported in Hansard as if it had been read.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The answer referred to above follows:]
1.	Cash balance in the Unemployment Insurance Fund.
(a)	May 31/69	$360,507,271.69(b)	May 31/70	394,098,625.18(c)	May 31/71	244,493,115.322.	Benefit payments from the Fund(a)	1970	(b)
January
February
March
April
May

3. Average	Number Drawing Benefits	
January February March April May 4. Average	1970 1971 549.4 590.7 549.1 691.9 528.0	639.7 513.1	691.9 529.6 Not available Weekly Benefit Payment	January	1971	$36.28February	1971	36.47March	1971	35.74April	1971	36.14May	1971	Not available5. Initial Claims 1970 January 211,501	1971 226,432February	155,292	164,058March	145,885	173,003April	158,029	165,889May	125,614	N/A6. Claims Not Established	January	1971	45,597February	1971	26,482March	1971	16,825April	1971	21,500May	1971	Not availableOPPORTUNITIES FOR	YOUTH PROGRAM-NUMBER


PROJECTS SUBMITTED
Mr. Southam: 1.	In the government's "Opportunities for Youth program," how many projects were submitted by Canadian students from March 16 to May 31, 1971?
2.	By province, how many projects have been submitted up to and including May 31, 1971?
3 What was the total amount of funds disbursed for these programs up to and including May 31, 1971?
4.	By province, what was the total amount of funds disbursed for this program up to and including May 31, 1971?
5.	By province, how many applications for financial support for projects under the program have been turned down up to and including May 31, 1971?


Gérard Pelletier: 1. Approximately 13,000 projects were submitted under the Opportunities for Youth program from March 16 to May 31, 1971. This figure includes duplicate submissions received for some projects.
2.	Number of proj cts submitted up to and including May 31, 1971: British Columbia, 943; Alberta, 503; Saskatchewan, 214; Manitoba, 539; Northwest Territories, 18; Ontario, 3,276; Quebec, 4,276; Nova Scotia, 662; New Brunswick, 471; Prince Edward Island, 196; Newfoundland, 205. Duplicate submissions received for some projects are not included.
3.	The total amount of funds disbursed for these programs up to and including May 31, 1971, was $20,589,729.

September 8, 1971

4.	Amount of funds disbursed for this program up to and including May 31, 1971, by region. British Columbia, $2,280,025; Prairies and N.W.T. (Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Northwest Territories), $3,558,990; Ontario, $4,627,904; Quebec, $7,363,689; Atlantic Region (Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland), $2,552,586. Amount given for National projects is not included.
5.	Number of applications for financial support for projects under this program turned down up to and including May 31, 1971: British Columbia, 652; Alberta, 363; Saskatchewan, 109; Manitoba, 452; Northwest Territories, 7; Ontario, 2,688; Quebec, 3,474; Nova Scotia, 533; New Brunswick, 404; Prince Edward Island, 164; Newfoundland, 153.


NATIONAL ARTS CENTRE-COST OF CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Laprise: 1.	What was the original amount proposed for the construction of the National Arts Centre?
2.	How much has the construction of the National Arts Centre cost to date and when is the release of the final acceptance certificate expected?


Arthur Laing: 1.

2. Construction costs to date-$46,307,856. Release of final acceptance certificate expected in September 1971. [English]


GRANTS OR LOANS TO MICROSYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
Mr. Lewis: 1. Has the government made any grants or loans to Microsystems International Limited and, if so, what is the total amount?
2.	Under what government program or programs have these grants or loans been made?
3.	What is the specific purpose of each grant or each loan?
4.	What proportion of moneys under each of these grants or loans has been claimed by the company as of this date?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1. Conditional grants totalling $35,950,000 and a loan in the amount of $12,000,000 have been authorized for Microsystems International Ltd.*
2.	The conditional grants have been made available under the votes for the Defense Industry Productivity Program.
3.	The general purpose of the conditional grants and loan is to assist the company to achieve international competence and competitive ability in microelectronic products. Each conditional grant and loan is directed at the following specific purposes: (a) Development Grant-For the development of high quality microelectronic products and related processes; (b) Source Establishment Grant- To assist in the establishment of a production facility for a broad variety of high quality advanced microelectronic products; and (c) Capital Assistance Grant and Loan-To acquire additional advanced equipment necessary for production, testing and quality assurance.
Questions
4.	As of June 1971, the proportion of moneys paid to the company under each conditional grant and loan was: Development Grant, $5,652,573, 34.4 per cent of the authorized grant; Source Establishment Grant, $6,257,439, 83.6 per cent of the authorized grant; Capital Assistance Grant, $2,068,600, 17.2 per cent of the authorized grant; Capital Assistance Loan, $2,068,600, 17.2 per cent of the authorized loan. All conditional grants are repayable to the Crown from all profits before taxes in excess of 10 per cent of sales. The Capital Assistance Loan is unconditionally repayable in full.
Section 13, however, of the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act prohibits the divulgence of information concerning any corporation.


LOANS AND INVESTMENTS IN FOREIGN CONTROLLED BUSINESSES IN CANADA
Mr. Saltsman: 1.	What proportion of the total outstanding Industrial Development Bank loans are held by foreign owned and foreign controlled businesses in Canada?
2.	For each year 1960 to 1970, what proportion of all loans by Canadian financial institutions and what proportion of all funds invested by Canadians financial institutions were lodged in or with foreign owned and foreign controlled businesses in Canada?


Edgar John Benson: In so far as the
Industrial Development Bank is concerned, the IDB does not maintain records in a form which would provide information concerning either the number or amount of loans to foreign owned or foreign controlled businesses in Canada. The Industrial Development Bank Act empowers it to provide financial assistance to persons "engaged or about to engage in an industrial enterprise in Canada". Notwithstanding the absence of statistical data, the proportion of loans to foreign owned or controlled businesses is very small. The IDB's customers are, primarily, small business enterprises, many of which are proprietorships or partnerships and the average size of loan in fiscal 1970 was $46,000.


WESTERN SHORE, N.S.-DEVELOPMENT OF HOTEL AND MARINA FACILITIES
Mr. Crouse: Is federal aid in grants and loans being made available for the development of hotel and marina facilities at Western Shore, Lunenburg County, Nova Scotia and, if so (a) what are the names of the principals of the developing company (b) what are the amounts of the grants or loans (c) what is the amount of the dredging contract and what percentage of the amount will be shared by the developers (d) what is the total estimated cost of this development?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Department of Public Works as follows: Yes, an approved project, under the Federal Government's Marina Policy, of marina facilities for pleasure craft is underway at Western Shore, Lunenburg County, Nova Scotia, (a) The officers of the developing company, Scotia Yacht Marina Division Limited, are: President, Mr. Henry J. Bird; Secretary, Mr. A. G. H. Fondham. (b) The Federal Government will pay for a breakwater and public area dredging in the amount of $367,400. (c) Public tenders were called and a

September 8, 1971
Questions
contract has been awarded to Tidewater Construction Co. Ltd., Lower Sackville, N.S. in the amount of $367,400 of which $34,500 is for dredging, paid for entirely by the Federal Government, (d) The total cost of the development is estimated to be in excess of $1,000,000.


NUMBER OF CANADIAN WORKERS IN U.S. FORESTRY INDUSTRY UNABLE TO RECEIVE UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS FROM CANADA
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): How many Canadian workers employed in the United States forestry industry cannot receive unemployment benefits from Canada?


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, this information is not known to the Unemployment Insurance Commission.


CMHC-STUDY &quot;SOME ASPECTS OF CANADIAN HOUSING&quot;
Mr. Hales: 1.	Has Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation provided money for the study "Some aspects of Canadian Housing" prepared by the Canadian Council on Social Development (Canadian Welfare Council) and, if so (a) was it in the form of estimates or as a research grant (b) how much money was provided?
2.	What is the academic and personal background of Mr, Michael Audain who assisted in the study and writing of this report?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: 1. (a) (b) Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has not provided money for the study entitled "Some Aspects of Canadian Housing".
2. Not applicable.


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY, MONTMAGNY, P.Q.. TO NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Has the Quebec Government requested financial aid from the Government of Canada for the completion of construction of the Trans-Canada Highway from Montmagny, Quebec to the New Brunswick border and, if so, on what date was this request received and what was the reply?


James Alexander Jerome: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker. A request was made on December 5, 1969 for an extension in time to the Trans-Canada Highway Agreement, which was to expire with construction done to December 31, 1970. The reply stated that the federal government's decision to terminate the Trans-Canada Highway program was based on a number of factors, one being the extended length of time the program has been in force. The original legislation was enacted in 1949 and participation under it was available to all provinces since the first agreement was offered to the provinces in 1950, with termination at that time being 1956. A number of extensions were granted by subsequent legislation to the December 1970 date, thus providing a 21 year construction period. Other factors were the rapidly rising costs to the federal government, particularly by assistance to the provinces in the fields of health, education and regional expansion.


OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-AMOUNTS ALLOCATED TO PROVINCES
Mr. Fairweather: What amount per province has been allocated to date under the Opportunities for Youth Program?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows: Atlantic area, $2.8 million; Quebec, $9 million; Ontario, $5 million; Prairies and Northwest Territories, $3.8 million; British Columbia and Yukon, $2.4 million; National projects, $500,000.


CAUSEWAY OPPOSITE FORT COULONGE, P.Q.
Mr. Hees: 1.	Has it been brought to the attention of the Minister of Transport or of his Department that a causeway has been constructed over a navigable channel of the Ottawa River, opposite the Village of Fort Coulonge, Quebec, obstructing navigation and creating a possible hazard to health and a source of pollution and, if so, has the Department previously approved this construction, or was approval given after the construction?
2.	In this latter case, has the Department requested the payment of a fee of $1,000.00, as prescribed by regulations, when approval of a causeway is sought after it has been commenced and, if not, for what reason?
3.	Has the Department ordered the demolition of this structure and, if not, for what reason?
4.	What objections, if any, has the Department received in regard to this construction and what has it done to investigate such objections or other complaints received?
5.	Has the Department of Transport communicated with other departments, either federal or provincial, concerned with health and the fight against pollution, to inform them of any complaints received, and of the possible harmful effects of this construction?


Gérard Duquet: 1. The Department approved the work after commencement of construction.
2.	The $1,000 fee was requested and received by the Department.
3.	No. The builder has complied completely with the requirements of the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
4.	The objections received relate primarily to the question of appearance of the causeway and its possible effect on health and as a source of pollution. It was also suggested that it might cause some minor obstruction to navigation. The Department engineers have inspected the site before and after construction.
5.	Yes, with the Federal Department of Environment and verbally with Quebec Water Board. The persons objecting have been advised to communicate with the appropriate Quebec provincial Department on all matters other than navigation about which they have concern since these are matters under provincial jurisdiction.

September 8, 1971


BANKRUPTCIES OF INDUSTRIES SUBSIDIZED BY DREE
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): How many industries subsidized by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion went bankrupt in 1970 and 1971?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Six.


TRANSPORT-PROVISION OF ADDITIONAL ICE-BREAKING VESSELS. P.E.I.
Mr. MacLean: Has the Department of Transport plans for the provision of a new, modem rail-carrying, ice breaking ferry to serve between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick of the general type and capacity of the MV Abegweit and (a) if not, what equipment of this nature in addition to the part-time operation of the MV John Hamilton Gray is envisaged to supplement the operation of the MV Abegweit (b) if so, have these plans been approved by the government and what is the procurement schedule?


Gérard Duquet: No firm plans are completed, (a) The MV Abegweit and MV Gray as icebreakers will operate together when this particular requirement is a necessity in this service, (b) See above.


TRANSPORT-P.E.I. SERVICE
Mr. MacLean: 1.	Which car ferries on the Borden-Cape Tormentine Service are capable of transporting truck trailers loaded on flat cars and, if none, what method is being used to deliver such truck trailers from or to Prince Edward Island?
2.	What plans does the Department of Transport have to improve this service?


Gérard Duquet: 1. The following vessels are capable of handling flatcars which may or may not contain trailers: MV Abegweit and the MV John Hamilton Gray.
2. Up to the present demand for this type of service has been very limited and present capacity is more than adequate for the foreseeable future.


RCMP-NATIVE INDIAN ENROLMENT
Mr. McIntosh: 1.	How many native Indians are enrolled at present in the RCMP?
2.	In the past five years, how many applications for enrolment have been received by the RCMP from native Indians and, of these (a) how many have been accepted for enrolment (b) how many applicants successfully completed the qualifying training course (c) how many have failed the qualifying training course?
3.	Have any special efforts been made to encourage native Indians to apply for enlistment in the RCMP?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: 1. Eight.
2. Nine, (a) Four; (b) Four; (c) none.
Questions
3. Since 1970 concentrated and special efforts have been made, and are being continued, across Canada to encourage native Indians to apply for enlistment with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In 1971 recruiting advertisements were placed in The Saskatchewan Indian, a newspaper distributed to 123 Indian reservations throughout the province. Also, groups of Indian and Metis are approached through "Career Fairs" hosted by high schools throughout Alberta. Similar recruiting efforts were made in other provinces during the past year.


TRANSPORT-INSTALLATION OF ESCALATORS IN NEW FERRIES
Mr. MacLean: Is it the intention of the Department of Transport to install escalators or elevators in the two new car-ferries operating on the Borden-Cape Tormentine Ferry Service and, if not, what other action is the department taking to reduce or eliminate the necessity of passengers climbing the stairs?


Gérard Duquet: 1. The evaluation of the alternatives to overcome a reported problem of passengers having to climb stairs on the MV Holiday Island and MV Vaca-tionland is presently with the Department of Supply and Services, Shipbuilding Branch. Meetings are being scheduled to review alternate proposals dealing with the matter.


TRANSPORT-GUARANTEE OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICE BETWEEN P.E.I. AND NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. MacLean: Has the government, the Canadian National Railways and the railway union concerned, formulated an agreement that will guarantee transportation service between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, regardless of strikes and work stoppages involving railway employees and, if not, what action is the government taking to try to obtain such an agreement?


Gérard Duquet: 1. (a) No. (b) No action is being taken at present by the government to see that such an agreement is incorporated in the various union contracts.


REMOVAL FROM GULF OF ST. LAWRENCE OF SUNKEN IRVING WHALE
Mr. MacLean: 1.	Will the sunken Irving Whale and its cargo be removed from the Gulf of Saint Lawrence and, if so, on what date?
2.	What department will be responsible for the elimination of this pollution hazard?


Gérard Duquet: 1. It is the intention of the Department of Transport to have the Irving Whale and its cargo removed from the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Proposals are now being requested from a number of salvage companies for its removal on the basis of (a) at the closing of the tourist season in September and (b) in these companies' opinion if the best time of the year for the least risk of pollution during the salvage operation.
24171-62J

September 8, 1971
Questions


AIR CANADA-SERVICE BETWEEN HALIFAX AND MONTREAL
Mr. Forreslall: 1.	How many complaints have been received by Air Canada since April 25, 1971 regarding the frequency of flights between Halifax and Montreal?
2.	What steps have been taken to provide regular service both ways between Halifax and Montreal between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.?
3.	Will such service be provided and, if so, when?


Gérard Duquet: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. Ten written complaints have been received.
2. and 3. Effective April 25, 1971 the schedule provides 198 seats departing Halifax at 1400 hours, arriving Montreal 1425 hours. In addition, 198 seats are provided on Sunday departing Halifax at 1635 hours and on Tuesday departing Halifax at 1505 hours. The less-than-daily service will be extended to include Monday and Wednesday during the peak season. An additional DC9 service will, effective August 1st, operate on Tuesday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday until September 1st when Thursday will be added to the above days, for the months of September and October. This flight will depart Montreal at 1400 hours and arrive Halifax 1520 hours. In the reverse direction it will depart Halifax 1615 hours and arrive Montreal 1640 hours.
AIR CANADA-REGIONAL DIRECTORS Question No. 1,601


Mr. Forreslall:: 1.	Is there an Atlantic Provinces Director, or General Manager of Services, for Air Canada?
2.	Do the other region directors, or managers, report directly to a Region Manager and, if not, to whom do they report?
3.	Over what areas of interest does the General Manager have decision-making authority and, to whom does he report?


Gérard Duquet: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	The General Manager, Atlantic Provinces, has area responsibilities for public relations, industrial and economic development and communications and he reports directly to the Vice-President, Eastern Region.


AIR CANADA-ATLANTIC REGION
Mr. Forreslall: Is the Atlantic Region represented on the Board of Air Canada and (a) if so, by whom (b) if not (i) since what date (ii) for what reasons?


Gérard Duquet: Appointments to the Board are made to insure a wide range of experience, and all members are concerned with matters affecting all parts of the Air Canada operation. Mr. George Meikle of Sommer-side, P.E.I. is presently a member of the Board.


P.E.I.-CANADA MANPOWER TRAINING PROGRAM
Mr. MacLean: 1.	How many persons in Prince Edward Island took a retraining course in the fiscal year 1970-71?
2.	What was the total amount paid in allowances to these persons?
3.	What was the administrative cost of this program as it relates to Prince Edward Island?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. In the fiscal year 1970-71, 5,315 persons took training courses in Prince Edward Island under the Canada Manpower Training Program. This includes all full-time and part-time training, as well as persons trained under contracts with employers in industry.
2.	The total amount paid in allowances in 1970-71 to those of the 5,315 persons eligible to receive such allowances, was $2.4 million.
3.	$1.6 million has been paid to the province of Prince Edward Island and to employers in respect of training carried out during 1970-71, including administrative costs.


P.E.I. DEVELOPMENT PLAN-NUMBER OF JOBS CREATED
Mr. MacDonald (Egmonl): 1. To date, have any new jobs been created through the Prince Edward Island Development Plan and, If so, how many are in (a) agriculture (b) fisheries (c) tourism?
2 When will the evaluation of the Prince Edward Island Development Plan take place and how will the citizens of Prince Edward Island participate?
3.	What amount has been spent by the government on the Prince Edward Island Development Plan for staff facilities and training?


Jean Marchand: 1. Yes, estimated to be approximately in (a) 150 (b) 200 (c) 70.
2.	The first evaluation, or general review, of the plan was completed on June 21, 1971, with the signing of Amendment No. 1, which gave effect to the changes in programs and funding arrangements necessary to enhance the plan's effectiveness. Another formal review probably will not be required before 1973. Evaluation is a continuing process without restrictions as to time, as explained in Appendix "A" to the plan. The citizens of Prince Edward Island participate in evaluation as in other aspects of the plan through the Public Participation and Involvement Program, through special arrangements made by the provincial government, and also through the normal process of democracy.
3.	Up to March 31, 1971, Federal $98,278, Provincial $82,379.


SALE OF GOODS TO PORTUGAL
Mr. MacDonald (Egmonl): During the past two years, has the government facilitated the sale of goods to Portugal destined for the Cabora Bassa Dam by way of export loans, guarantees and insurance incentives?

September 8, 1971


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Export Development Corporation (and its predecessor, the Export Credits Insurance Corporation) has no record of having insured credit in connection with the sale of goods destined for the Cabora Bassa Dam, nor has it issued guarantees, nor made loans in such a connection.


VIOLATION OF RHODESIA REGULATIONS
Mr. MacDonald (Egmonl): 1.	Did the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce have any communication with Alcan before they signed the contract with Quintas y Quintas concerning the possible violation of the Rhodesia regulations and was there any communication after it was signed?
2.	What was the nature and substance of the communication?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1. No.
2. N/A.


RETURN OF THE JOHN HAMILTON GRAY TO BORDEN-TORMENTINE SERVICE
Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 1.	On what date does the government plan to return the John Hamilton Gray to the Tormentine-Borden run?
2.	How much time will be necessary for a refit to transfer the John Hamilton Gray from the Newfoundland run to the Prince Edward Island-New Brunswick run?


Gérard Duquet: 1. Present plans call for the return of the M.V. John Hamilton Cray to the Borden-Tor-mentine crossing between October 15 and November 1. The exact date cannot be determined because of delays which may occur during her annual refit.
2. The normal refit for this vessel has been in the order of four weeks in the past. The additional work necessitated by the transfer of this vessel to the Newfoundland Service is estimated to take three days which may be able to be done concurrently wtith the annual refit to some extent. Until such time as the refit is well underway the exact number of days required cannot be determined.


LENNOX ISLAND INDIAN RESERVE
Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 1.	How long has the Indian reserve on Lennox Island, Prince Edward Island, been under federal supervision?
2.	What is the population of the reserve?
3.	What are the means of transportation most often used by the reserve population to get to the mainland?
4.	What means of transportation are used by government officials and federal law officers in getting from the mainland to Lennox Island?
5.	How many lives have been lost due to unsafe passage between the mainland and Lennox Island?


Mr. Judd Buchanan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1.
Since 1873, when Prince Edward Island joined Confederation.
Questions
2.	275.
3.	Ferry in summer and snowmobile in winter.
4.	Ferry or outboard boat in summer and snowmobile in winter.
5.	Our records of accidental deaths by drowning extend back approximately ten years. During that time ten lives have been lost. However, the records do not indicate the cause of the drownings.


CANADA MANPOWER RETRAINING PROGRAM ENROLMENT
Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): What Is the expected enrolment in the Manpower Retraining Program between September and December, 1971?


Otto Emil Lang: The expected enrolment in the Canada Manpower Training Program between September and December, 1971 is approximately 80,000 full-time trainees.


RESPONSE OF PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS TO PLAN
Mr. MacKay: Have there been any replies or counter-proposals put forward by the provincial governments in response to the federal government's plan regarding off-shore mineral rights, especially in regard to the division of the potential revenues from these offshore mineral and oil rights and, if so, what were these replies or counter-proposals and from which provincial governments were they received?


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister's announcements in December 1968 and March 1969, there have been many meetings and a great deal of correspondence between the federal government and provincial governments on the question of the management of off-shore mineral resources and the division of potential revenues from off-shore mineral and oil developments. Other suggestions have been made by certain provinces with a view to achieving the same objective as that announced by the Prime Minister.
When discussions with the provinces reach an appropriate stage, a statement by the government will be made.


MIDDLE EAST-SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 242
Mr. Vewchuk: 1.	Does the government endorse the full implementation of the Security Council Resolution 242 of November 22. 1967?
2.	Does the government recognize the present borders of Israel?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. Yes.
2. The Canadian Government regards the delineation of recognized boundaries as an essential element in the formulation of the just and lasting peace settlement envisaged by Security Council Resolution 242, the achievement of which remains the objective of continuing efforts by the UN Secretary-General's special representative as provided for by that Resolution.

September 8, 1971
Orders for Returns



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Paproski: 1.	Were tenders called for contract CR-67-12, May 19, 1967, Site development, underpass and utilities, Greenbelt Farm and, if so (a) what was the number of bids received (b) what was the highest and what was the lowest (c) what bid was accepted (d) how was the notice of tender publicized?
2.	If no tenders were submitted, what was the reason?
3.	Who was awarded the contract?
4.	If the Department of Public Works executed the contract
(a)	what was the cost of (i) architectural supervision (ii) engineering supervision (iii) excavation (iv) foundation (v) super structure roofing contractor and concrete supplier (vi) masonry construction (vii) interior divisions plastering and interior finish partition (viii) heating and air conditioning (ix) electrical wiring (x) plumbing and heating (b) by whom was same done?
5.	Who was the bonding company for sub contracts?
6.	With whom was the insurance placed for sub trades?
Return tabled.


PUBLIC WORKS-CONTRACT 8C-08992-GREENBELT FARM
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Were tenders called for contract 8C-08992, November 6, 1968, Construction of Building No. 28, Greenbelt Farm and, if so (a) what was the number of bids received (b) what was the highest and what was the lowest (c) what bid was accepted (d) how was the notice of tender publicized?
2.	If no tenders were submitted, what was the reason?
3.	Who was awarded the contract?
4.	If the Department of Public Works executed the contract (a) what was the cost of (i) architectural supervision (ii) engineering supervision (iii) excavation (iv) foundation (v) super structure roofing contractor and concrete supplier (vi) masonry construction (vii) interior divisions plastering and interior finish partition (viii) heating and air conditioning (ix) electrical wiring (x) plumbing and heating (b) by whom was same done?
5.	Who was the bonding company for sub contracts?
6.	With whom was the insurance placed for sub trades?
Return tabled.


NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE GRANTS
Mr. Paproski: What grants, in what amounts, have been made to organizations and associations through agencies or the department for which the Minister of National Health and Welfare is responsible?
Return tabled.


NEWFOUNDLAND-GOVERNMENT OF CANADA PARTICIPATION IN ROAD. HIGHWAY AND BRIDGE PROJECTS, 1970-71
Mr. Carter: 1.	During the fiscal year 1970-71, what road, highway and bridge projects in Newfoundland involved the participation of the Government of Canada or any of its agencies and, in each case, to what extent?
2.	Were public tenders called for the work in question, and
(a)	if so, what was the total dollar value of contracts awarded
(b)	if not, for what reason?
Return tabled.


PRODUCTION OF INDUSTRIAL PROTEINS
Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	Is the government (a) producing (b) conducting research into the production of industrial proteins for animal feed from petroleum products and, if not, for what reasons?
2.	Has the government imported industrial proteins and (a) if so, from what countries (b) if not, does it intend to do so?
Return tabled.


USE OF GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT BY PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Coates: 1.	On how many occasions has the Prime Minister used government aircraft since October, 1970 and, in each instance, was it a Jetstar or a Boeing 707?
2.	On each occasion that the Prime Minister used a government aircraft since October, 1970, was it for government or personal purposes or both?
3.	On each occasion, who travelled with the Prime Minister and were there any occasions when special stops were made for the benefit of one or more of the passengers?
4.	On each occasion, what was the destination of the flight?
5. What has been the total miles logged on government aircraft from June 25, 1968, to the present by the Prime Minister?
Return tabled.


OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	By province, how many projects (a) were submitted to the government under the Opportunities for Youth Program (b) were rejected (c) were accepted?
2.	How many students from the University of Sherbrooke submitted projects and (a) how many of the projects were accepted (b) for each accepted project, what is (i) the name of the student sponsoring the project (ii) the nature of the project (iii) the amount granted by the government?
3.	What are the names and addresses of the students from the constituency of Richmond who submitted projects to the government and (a) which projects were rejected and for what reasons (b) for each project accepted, what was (i) its nature (ii) the amount granted?
Return tabled.


MAURICIE NATIONAL PARK
Mr. Matte: 1.	What is the detailed plan of the Mauricie National Park?
2.	Will private enterprise be called upon to assume a role in the organization of this Park and, if so, what role?
3.	How many permanent jobs will be created?
4.	In what manner and on what date will the development contracts be awarded?
5.	Are any work projects underway and, if so, which ones?
6.	What criteria will be used in the selection of permanent and temporary employees?
Return tabled.
September 8, 1971


SECOND LANGUAGE TRAINING PROGRAM
Mr. Skoberg: 1.	What is the number of students to be affected under the Second Language Training Program of the federal government?
2.	Has the Canadian Council of Ministers of Education agreed to administer this Program?
3.	What institutions or universities, if any, have agreed to participate in the Program?
4.	Are arrangements being made to inform those students who have left their campus of the program and invite applications from them?
5.	Will the students be given a grant under this program and, if so (a) in what amount (b) what is the duration of the course
(c)	will the students be required to take the course in a cultural region other than their own?
6.	What method has been devised to screen the applicants and identify the chosen students?
7.	What is the commencement date of the first course?
8.	Did the Secretary of State consult the provinces at the conclusion of the emergency program last summer as to its continuing this year and, if so, what was the response?
9.	Has the Minister met with any opposition from the ministers of education and, if so (a) from whom (b) for what reason?
10.	Are all the Youth Programs announced on April 22, 1971, by the Minister firmly established and proceeding as scheduled?
11.	Does the Minister intend to establish an education office in his Department to co-ordinate Youth Programs directly involved with universities and students and related groups?
12.	Has the government participated in a scholarship granting program in direct co-operation with universities, i.e. a second language training program, without consulting the provinces?
Return tabled.


RESEARCH INCENTIVES PROGRAM
Mr. Robinson: Will the government consider the advisability of changes in the Research Incentives Programme so that small industries can qualify in the research field in specific areas of competence?
Return tabled.


USE OF PRIVATE COLLECTION AGENCIES TO COLLECT UNPAID STUDENT LOANS
Mr. Forreslall: 1.	Is it the policy of the government to use private collection agencies to collect unpaid student loans?
2.	Have these agencies been used for any other government purposes and, if so, what other purposes?
3.	Which agencies have been used since January 1, 1970 and at what expense?
4.	How much money have these agencies been able to recover for the government since January 1, 1970?
5.	From how many people have these agencies recovered money since January 1, 1970?
6.	Does the government give instructions to those companies to ensure that they do not harass or intimidate those people with whom they are dealing?
Return tabled.
Motions for Papers



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 3 and 7 are acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents and to the authorization of the government authorities concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the conditions expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that notices of motion Nos. 3 and 7 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ST ANBURY-FIELDS REPORT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 3-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the Stan-bury-Fields report.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 7-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the report of the interdepartmental committee, the establishment of which was announced on March 29. 1965, which studied the question of fish and game laws as they relate to Native Indians.
Motion agreed to.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 153, 180, 233, 236, and 239?



SALE OF RYERSON PRESS LTD.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 153-Mr. Macquarrie:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, memoranda, etc., between the Government of Canada and the United Church of Canada and other individuals and organizations relating to the question of the sale of Ryerson Press Ltd.
Gerald William Baldwin: I move this motion on the hon. member's behalf, Mr. Speaker.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, this motion is acceptable in so far as the Departments of Industry, Trade and Commerce and National Defence are concerned. However, for the Prime Minister's office to comply, a considerable number of man-hours would have to be assigned to extract this correspondence from the files; since these man-hours are not presently available, extra staff would have to be employed on a casual basis in order to complete this job.
Accurate statistics on the number of such correspondence are, however, maintained, and such information

September 8, 1971
Motions for Papers
could be provided in response to a question on the order paper.
The motion is therefore acceptable Mr. Speaker, except in so far as correspondence from the Prime Minister's office is concerned.


Gerald William Baldwin: We might transfer this motion for debate. If my hon. friend feels that the reply is satisfactory he can then agree that the motion be withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



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

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 180-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all letters, memoranda, or other correspondence or documents exchanged between the Dominion Statistician or any other official or employee of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and the Deputy Minister of Labour or any other official or employee of the Department of Labour and any other party, organization or person, including copies of the minutes of all meetings and conferences, relating to an arrangement or an agreement, proposed or concluded, between the Dominion Statistician and the Department of Labour modifying, suspending, changing or amending certain reporting requirements of the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, this motion is agreeable to the government only insofar as correspondence exchanged between officials of the government and organizations and persons outside the government is concerned. All other requests for papers within this motion cannot be agreed to as such papers are internal and considered to be privileged. If this is agreeable to the hon. member, we would be prepared to table the correspondence referred to here, subject to the consent of the unions concerned.


Mr. Skoberg:: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is agreeable.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that Notice of Motion No. 180 be deemed to be adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 233-Mr. Nowlan:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the document, containing the results of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism's research on the press and broadcasting, which was assembled and not released.
Mr. Barnett J. Danson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, there is no single docu-

ment containing the commission's research on the press and broadcasting. This is part of a number of research studies which were transferred to the Public Archives along with the commission's papers. I would therefore ask, Mr. Speaker, that this motion be withdrawn.


Mr. Nowlan:: Agreed.


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



COPY OF AGREEMENT WITH RESPECT TO CANADA STUDENT LOANS PLAN

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 236-Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the agrement reached by the federal government and the Government of Quebec with respect to the compensation of the Canada Student Loans Plan.
Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, section 12 of the Canada Student Loans Act makes provision for compensation to be paid to any province that operates its own student loan plan and sets out a precise formula for calculating the compensation which does not involve any form of agreement with a province. As there is no requirement for an agreement, the hon. member may wish to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member like to withdraw his motion?


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


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



CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING CLOSURE OF CHEMCELL LTD. FACTORY IN MONTMAGNY

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 239-Mr. Lamberl (Bellechasse):.
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence between the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce or any officials thereof and the chairman of the Chemcell Ltd. concerning the intention of this company to close its factory in Montmagny.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, there are three public company notices which the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce can table. There was no correspondence exchanged between the minister and the company on the subject. However, correspondence received by the Textile and Clothing Board contains confidential information relating to the company's operations and future plans. The hon. member may be aware that the Textile and Clothing Board Act prohibits the board from releasing any confidential information. However, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce will be pleased to table the notices referred to.
September 8, 1971


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member like to withdraw his motion?


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


James Alexander Jerome: May I ask that the remaining Notices of Motions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister again whether his government has any specific measures to propose to ease prospective unemployment this winter? Yesterday the Prime Minister asked me to hold my breath until the Minister of Finance had spoken. Having dutifully held my breath until the minister took it away by his complacency, and having since regained it, I again ask the Prime Minister whether his government has any specific measures to propose?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker, not at this time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the necessity of action being taken now if it is to have any effect at all with regard to winter employment, will the Prime Minister not cause a review to be undertaken of the complacent forecasts made by the Minister of Finance in connection with unemployment this winter, forecasts which as far as I know are not shared by anybody else in this country?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York South.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member for York South will allow me to recognize the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings who obviously has a supplementary to ask. Immediately afterward I will recognize the hon. member for York South.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


George Harris Hees: As there now appears to be little doubt that President Nixon will introduce some form of prices and wage controls after the present 90-day freeze expires, is it the intention of
Inquiries of the Ministry
the government to introduce price and wage guidelines as a means of checking inflation and making it possible for hard-pressed firms to compete in the United States and world markets? If not, does the government intend to introduce some better method of controlling inflation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have said before, and I repeat now, that we are considering this method and keeping it under review, but no decision has been taken to introduce such guidelines.



UNITED STATES IMPORT SURTAX-RESPONSE TO CANADIAN REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION

Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. It arises out of reports contained in both his speech yesterday and that of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In the discussions in Washington did the United States administration definitely refuse to exempt Canada from the 10 per cent surtax, or was there an undertaking to consider the request with an answer to be given at a later date?


Edgar John Benson: The latter is the case, Mr. Speaker.


David Lewis: If the latter is the case, would the Minister of Finance inform the House whether he has received any indication when a reply, either yes or no, to his request may be given?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr, Speaker. Talks have been continuing, as I mentioned in my speech yesterday, at the official level, and it has been agreed that there will be further talks in the near future.


David Lewis: During the talks either among the ministers or among the officials have any requests or suggestions been made by the United States authorities that Canada should make concessions in any particular direction in order to obtain the exemption asked for?


Edgar John Benson: Certainly not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the speech of the minister. Would the Minister of Finance inform the House which side of the House he was threatening when he said he would probably run again, or was he threatening the unemployed?



UNITED STATES IMPORT SURTAX-CANADIAN REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING POSSIBLE USE TO RESTRICT FREE FLOW OF WORLD TRADE

Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. When the minister was discussing this issue with the United States government, was consideration given to the possible employment of the surcharge

September 8, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
not only as a weapon to realign world currencies but also as technique to restrict the free flow of trade in the world? If so, what was the response of the United States government to that suggestion?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, we certainly objected to the surtax as it applied to Canada. We recognized the fact that the United States had to take certain steps with respect to its balance of payments and we welcomed those steps, but we put forth as strenuously as we could the argument that the surcharge should not apply to Canadian trade with the United States.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Peace River on a supplementary, following which the hon. member for Lotbiniere will be given an opportunity to ask a question. If hon. members wish to pursue the subject I will return to them later. At the moment the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Peace River.



USE OF EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT BILL TO OFFSET POSSIBLE COMMON MARKET ACTION RESPECTING IMPORTS FROM CANADA

Gerald William Baldwin: In light of clause 11 of the employment support bill, is it the intention of the government to apply the benefits of this legislation to industries and to any unemployment caused therein as a result of action taken by the Common Market countries with respect to Canadian imports?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, this would have to depend on how the situation develops in the future.



EFFECT OF UNITED STATES IMPORT SURTAX-DISCUSSION WITH PROVINCES

Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
In view of the American decision, resulting in a major economic problem for Canada, can the Prime Minister tell us whether there have been or will be meetings between different levels of government in order to undertake joint action with regard to the problem, or whether there is to be merely unilateral action on the part of the federal government in this regard?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there have been meetings and I have had the opportunity to discuss the matter personally with some provincial premiers. I know that there have also been exchanges between provincial finance ministers and the federal Minister of Finance.
The government is not in the least inclined, as the hon. member suggests, to solve the problem unilaterally but I
believe the provinces, in the present case, might welcome a unilateral solution.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, since following meetings which have taken place between the representative of the federal Minister of Finance and those of the provinces it seems that the provinces would wish for unilateral action on the part of the federal government, has the latter invited or does it intend to invite representatives of the provincial governments to support the federal government's action in this struggle, so as to stabilize again the Canadian economy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member is aware that there are frequent meetings between the Ministers of Finance of various levels of government, and one of the things which the federal Minister of Finance has done, in fact, was to suggest to provincial and municipal governments, and even to private corporations, in the course of the past months, to restrict, for instance, their purchase of bonds on the American market. So, this type of co-operation is constant, and indeed, we shall keep on maintaining it.
What I wanted to indicate, Mr. Speaker, is that when we are faced with difficult problems, provinces are only too quick to ask the federal government to solve them all alone.



UNITED STATES ECONOMIC DECISIONS-STRUCTURE FOR PRIOR CONSULTATION WITH CANADA

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of the apparent surprise the Nixon economic proposals had for the Canadian government and the close interrelationship of our two economies, will he indicate whether our government has advanced any proposals for consultative structures in respect of future economic decisions that may be made by the United States government which would have great impact on our own economy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is referring to structures at the federal-provincial level-he shakes his head no, so I wonder what structures he has in mind.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could clarify by asking whether there are any proposals for consultative structures between the two governments of Canada and the United States in respect of major economic decisions made by the United States that have a drastic impact on this country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I must point out that the question was asked as a supplementary to a question involving structures at the federal-provincial level, and it is quite clear that the question is-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You don't want to answer.

September 8, 1971



IMMEDIATE IMPLEMENTATION OF TRANSITIONAL ACREAGE PAYMENT APART FROM STABILIZATION LEGISLATION

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the disastrous effect the United States import surcharge will have on the export of some of our agricultural products to that country, will the minister take immediate steps to pay to western farmers the $100 million which he previously stated was available?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, this certainly can be done as soon as the bill is passed. The last time it was before the House the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar was filibustering it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I have a supplementary question.


An hon. Member:: And so he should, because this is rotten pool.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I can understand the minister's-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar has a supplementary question.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I can understand-


An hon. Member:: You can't understand anything.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Alfred Pullen Gleave: You can't take it.


An hon. Member:: You haven't asked a question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are running out of time and I think the hon. member should ask his question as quickly as possible.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I should like to do so if I am permitted, Mr. Speaker. I can understand the sensitivity-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has the floor for the purpose of asking a question, not for the purpose of advancing argument. I would invite him to ask the question as soon as possible.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: In view of the fact that during the summer the minister notified individual farmers as to the amounts they would receive, if and when payments were made, will he now consider splitting the stabilization bill so the House can deal immediately with these payments to the farmers in the amounts indicated?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding of these matters that the payments cannot be made without
Inquiries of the Ministry
approval by Parliament, that putting this item along with the repeal of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act by way of the estimates would not likely lead to the payments being made earlier, and that the earliest possible way to make the payments is by having the legislation come forward and passed as soon as possible.



WITHHOLDING BY GOVERNMENT OF PAYMENTS UNDER TEMPORARY WHEAT RESERVES ACT

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. Has his department taken any steps to determine whether the law is being flouted by the government in not having paid out the $61 million under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act even though that act is in existence today?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act has not been repealed, can the minister in charge of the Wheat Board advise the House what legal and moral justification the government has for withholding payments-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is strictly argumentation rather than a question. The Chair will now recognize a less argumentative questioner, the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Justice will out, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Vegreville rising on a point of order?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I believe the minister has a responsibility to explain to the people of Canada and the House exactly why the government has flouted the law by not meeting its commitments and its obligations under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act which has not been repealed.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member did not ask a question but advanced an argument, and in that respect his question is out of order. That is the reason the hon. member's question was ruled out of order. If he asks the question directly, then certainly he has every right to do so.

September 8, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, will the minister advise the House why the federal government has refrained from making payments under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act which is now on the statute books as Canadian law under which the payment of $61 million was to be made to Canadian farmers?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has asked the question. Perhaps the minister might want to answer it now.


Otto Emil Lang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As was indicated to the House last October, it was the belief of the government it was a much better form to make payments directly to farmers of the $100 million rather than make payments under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act to the Wheat Board in connection with the storage of grain. This policy was discussed with the producers and was laid before the House in the form of legislation. When that legislation is passed by the House the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act will be repealed effective July 31, 1970. In these circumstances any amounts paid under that act would have to be repaid by the recipients.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We should give an opportunity to other members to ask questions. Perhaps we can return to the hon. member in a short while. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.



CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. As he advised the House in June that he was simply waiting for passage of the legislation before announcing the names of the president and general manager of the Canada Development Corporation, I should like to ask now whether these appointments have been made and when the names of these two gentlemen will be announced?


Edgar John Benson: Very soon, Mr. Speaker.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, as this legislation was rushed through the House as a matter of great urgency, I should like to ask the minister to be a little more explicit and tell us when this announcement will be made, if he has made the appointments?


Edgar John Benson: Very soon, Mr. Speaker, and we are not considering the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



INCOME TAX


Mr. A. C. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the deep, nationwide concern of the co-operative organizations that certain tax reforms suggested in the income tax bill will destroy the present goals and practices of Canadian co-operative organizations, will the Minister of Finance inform the House whether these proposals in the bill are going to be amended and, if so, when will the changes be made public?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I have met with representatives of the co-operative movement and their representations with regard to the legislation are presently being considered by the government.


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: Is the minister prepared to meet with the co-operative organizations and hear further briefs from them on the proposed tax reforms and, if so, is such an invitation going to be issued?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is a little late. I met with the national co-operative organizations a month ago.



POLLUTION


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver Easi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of the Environment. I assure you, Sir, that my question has nothing to do with the atmosphere in the House of Commons. In view of a survey report on pollution conditions in the Canadian north, is the government considering acceptance of the recommendation of the commander of the Edmonton air force reserve, who undertook the survey, (hat in future contractors be held responsible for clean-up upon completion of any job they do?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Environment):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question as it is under his jurisdiction, I believe, so far as the security aspect is concerned. As the Solicitor General has said that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are unprepared to analyse reports on security, did the government discuss with the Commissioner of the RCMP and others the independent force and the situation in respect of security and did the Commissioner agree with that statement of the Solicitor General?
September 8, 1971


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the specific discussions which might have taken place between the minister and the Commissioner but this reform is one of a nature which is cooperated with completely by che RCMP. I see no cause for misunderstanding on it. It is a small unit within the minister's purview to co-ordinate findings and facts which come from various sources-the RCMP, the army and other provincial forces in Canada. It seems to me like a very sensible reform.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. I think the Prime Minister is aware that the RCMP have looked after security. Let me put this question to him succinctly. Did the RCMP through the Commissioner or any other body involved in security agree to a separate civilian force being set up by the government in so far as security is concerned?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Here again I think there is a misunderstanding. This is not a separate security force as the member seems to understand. It is a small co-ordinating body to make sure that the minister and the cabinet have information collected from various sources, including the RCMP, so that the government will be better informed on the facts spread around in the various government departments. I mentioned defence, the RCMP and the various provincial government and municipal police forces. It seems to me if we did not have this type of co-ordinating body the opposition would be rightly blaming us for not co-ordinating our information.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister now tell us who is going to head this force in question?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I just said it was not a force and therefore nobody is going to head it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Who is going to head it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Who is going to head the non-force, Mr. Speaker? A non-head.



CIVILIAN SECURITY FORCE-REQUEST FOR REFERENCE OF SUBJECT TO COMMITTEE

Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might direct a supplementary to the Prime Minister. Inasmuch as the announcement about this, whatever it is, was discovered after the estimates had proceeded through the committee and had been reported to the House, would the right hon. gentleman be prepared to introduce a motion in the House referring the subject matter to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs so that all the misunderstandings can be explained and all the non-heads can be disclosed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. If I did I am sure the misunderstanding would be supported by members just the same.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether an earlier answer to a ques-
Inquiries of the Ministry
tion meant that the Solicitor General was to head this group in his department?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



QUEBEC-THEFTS OF ARMS AND DYNAMITE-DISCUSSION WITH PROVINCIAL MINISTER OF JUSTICE

Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct to the Minister of Justice a question related to the one we have just discussed.
Thefts of arms, dynamite and objects of similar nature were reported repeatedly in the province of Quebec this summer. Has the federal Minister of Justice been in touch with his Quebec counterpart with a view to finding out who the culprits are and what their object is?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the question should be directed to the Solicitor General who is responsible for the RCMP.
* [DOT] [DOT]



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-CONTINUATION FINANCIAL AID

Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State.
Considering the success of the Opportunities for Youth program, would the minister tell us if some thought is being given to maintaining the financial assistance given to some of those projects?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, there is no intention of maintaining the financial assistance after the end of summer as the program was provided for that season. No extension of the grants was provided for in the program.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR FINAL REPORT

David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Secretary of State. In view of the considerable number of reports, surveys and studies which have been done by a variety of Opportunities for Youth projects across the country and which are presently being submitted or have been submitted to the minister's office, can the minister indicate when he will be prepared to make some kind of final statement on the over-all program this summer as well as indicate the disposition of the work done by these thousands of young people in a variety of social areas in the past three or four months?


Gérard Pelletier: In all
likelihood, Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of or in mid-October.

September 8, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-EARLY PLANNING FOR NEXT SUMMER

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary to the Secretary of State. Has the Secretary of State put plans in motion this fall in respect of arrangements for student employment next summer so that the unfortunate incidents which occurred because of the haste of this year's program will not he repeated?


Gérard Pelletier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, steps are being taken.



ACTION ON COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorklon-Melville):: My supplementary is directed to the Secretary of State, Mr. Speaker.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I just do not want to be out of it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville on a supplementary.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, in view of the recent issuance of the report of the committee on youth, can the minister indicate to the House whether or not he is contemplating any legislation or action on some of the recommendations of that report?


Gérard Pelletier: No, not
right now, Mr. Speaker.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. What steps is his department taking to avert major lay-offs in the paper mill at Corner Brook, Newfoundland and, second, has the Newfoundland government made any representations to the minister to avert these lay-offs?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am waiting for a report in which the company and the people concerned will give their suggestions in order to avoid the disaster or trouble my colleague has mentioned. As soon as I have the report, I shall see to what extent I can help the company.



MORATORIUM ON GRANTS TO NEW PULP AND PAPER MILLS

James Aloysius McGrath: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if
he will now consider placing a moratorium on any further grants to new pulp and paper mills in Canada until the market has a chance to stabilize?

Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic
Expansion): Mr. Speaker, there will not be any absolute decision in that matter, because it might be useful in some cases. But we do not intend to give any grants to pulp and paper plants in Canada as long as the situation remains uncertain.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-CONTINUANCE OF FINANCIAL AID

George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the previous one asked of the Secretary of State. In view of the introduction this year by the government of the Opportunities for Youth program, is any consideration being given now by the government to a program of opportunities for older people, many of whom are forced into idleness although they have great ability and as a result are unable to make use of their abilities?


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: It was Barry Mather thought that up.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. I must say there is no need for special authority, since senior citizens do not come under the Secretary of State.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister, and ask him the same question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Red Deer.


John Napier Turner: Haven't you got enough to do over there, George?


George Harris Hees: We have a lot to do keeping you on the job.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It concerns the statement last night by the Minister of Agriculture that the U.S. surcharge is going to have a severe impact on the agricultural industry. In view of the great concern that exists throughout the industry, and particularly in view of the statistics that the minister gave about those parts of it that will be affected, does the minister

September 8, 1971

Inquiries of the Ministry POWER
plan to use some of his subsidy program to assist the affected parts of the agricultural industry?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House would assist the food processing industry if it qualified and, as the Minister of Agriculture explained last night, he is looking through the agriculture programs for ways to help other parts of the agricultural industry.


Robert Norman Thompson: My question is simply: what about the farmer?


Edgar John Benson: That was answered last night.



PROPOSED FLOODING OF SKAGIT RIVER VALLEY-REPORT OF INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION

Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of the Environment. Has the minister received the report of the International Joint Commission on its investigation into the proposed flooding of the Skagit River valley?


John (Jack) Davis: No,
but the report will be submitted to the government some time next month.


Robert Norman Thompson: No, it wasn't.
[DOT] *



BRIDGES


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport relating to representations that have been made to him regarding the proposed toll bridge in Vancouver with access to Sea Island, and all the related paraphenalia associated with that structure. Has he reached any decision on whether this structure will proceed as planned, or has he reached a decision that it should be modified and have those concerned been notified?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, some weeks ago officials from the department met with the interested parties in the area of Richmond and also the general area surrounding the airport. A report has been brought back by them. A modified plan is now being prepared. I am hopeful that it can be brought forward for consideration by the government in a matter of a few weeks.
The difficulty at the moment is that the commitment made initially with the understanding of the people concerned did involve a toll arrangement. Our hope is that we can now reverse that arrangement in some way, but this will call for changes in design and in considerable added cost of the project.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, will the minister consult the people who are concerned and who, had they been consulted initially, might have saved the minister a lot of trouble?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I certainly cannot agree either with the supposition in the question or with the innuendo. On July 1 I spent the whole of the afternoon meeting with all of the groups from Richmond-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Randolph Harding: What further action has the minister or his department taken since the House recessed in June to block the proposed flooding of the Skagit River valley?


John (Jack) Davis: As the hon. member knows, Mr. Speaker, this matter is before the International Joint Commission and until that commission makes its recommendations known neither the Canadian government nor the U.S. government would take any action.

[DOT] * * NAVIGATION



OTTAWA RIVER-ACTION TO FORCE PAPER COMPANIES TO PICK UP DEBRIS

Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Both Eddy and CIP companies use the Ottawa river for their pulpwood and this is very hazardous for navigation. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion almost lost his life there the day before yesterday-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member ask his question.


David Réal Caouette: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was just about to ask my question. I also cruise the Ottawa river on my boat and the same misadventures happen to us.
Does the minister intend to force these companies to remove at least the waste they leave in the Ottawa river?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I can assure the hon. member that if he is in danger of losing his shirt I will look after him too.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.

September 8, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
Has the minister met recently with the premier of Quebec to discuss the economic and social development of eastern Quebec? If so, has a date been decided upon for signing the agreement which has once again been negotiated between Ottawa and Quebec City?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have been meeting with the premier of Quebec, I had several talks with him and I have reason to hope that the agreement will be signed this week.



FISHERIES


Mr. Elmer H. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Can he tell us whether there is any immediate aid contemplated for the Nova Scotia swordfish industry?


John (Jack) Davis: Not
directly, Mr. Speaker. However, the federal government has been working closely with the provincial government in this connection and alternative fisheries have been explored with a view to those fishermen finding employment in those other fisheries.
* *



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainle-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice with respect to the public statement made recently by the director of the Quebec Provincial Police, Mr. Saint-Pierre, to the effect that the underworld had infiltrated the federal administration to corrupt its officials. Did the minister take that statement seriously, does he intend to investigate the matter, or does he reject the allegations contained in that statement?


John Napier Turner: I am not
responsible for national security, Mr. Speaker, and the question should be directed to my colleague the Solicitor General.


Georges-J. Valade: I shall put the question to the Solicitor General-



BAIL REFORM ACT


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that the Bail Reform Act was passed in March of this year, why has the government not proclaimed it? Is it because of pressure from the police chiefs?


John Napier Turner: Not at all, Mr. Speaker. At the uniformity conference on criminal law held between my deputy minister and all the other deputy ministers of the Departments of Justice and Attorneys General of the provinces it was decided that we now had the manuals of instruction for police, magistrates and provincial judges in a form that we hope to be able to proclaim that act on January 1 next.



COMMUNICATIONS


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications and it provides me with an opportunity to congratulate him on his recent appointment to that responsible position. Arising from the recommendation of the Science Council of Canada for the establishment of a trans-Canada computer communications network, what action is the government taking to implement this recommendation, particularly to offset the growing influence on this important area of communications from powerful foreign competition?


Hon. Robert Slanbury (Minister of Communications):: As the hon. member knows, Mr. Speaker, there is a computer communications task force at work, and the recommendations of the Science Council are part of the input to that task force along with recommendations from the academic community, industry, consumers and so on. The Science Council report will certainly be taken into consideration by the task force.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: In view of the fact that several provincial governments are claiming priority in this field of communications, is the minister in touch with these governments on this important subject and are these contacts at the ministerial level?


Mr. Stanbury:: Yes, there have been continuing discussions with provincial governments, Mr. Speaker, but there has been no battle over jurisdiction in this field. I think there is every promise of agreement, and the discussions are continuing.



TAXATION


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Could the Minister of Finance please advise the House what answer he gave to the provincial treasurers who sought a delay of one year in the tax change provisions by which he was cancelling the estate tax? If that answer has been given, what is it and are there any other adjustments to the proposals as a result of any decision in that regard?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the matter is still under consideration. Although we
[Mr. Cyr.l
September 8, 1971

requested information from all the provinces, we still have not received it from some.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to bring to the attention of hon. members that we have just about run out of time and I was hoping to give an opportunity to other hon. members to ask questions. The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants has a question. With the consent of the House, I shall allow the hon. member for Edmonton West to ask a supplementary and then call on the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Has the minister scheduled any meetings with the provincial treasurers to further explore this subject, say within the next few weeks, because the outcome may seriously affect the deliberations of the House?


Edgar John Benson: I think the government made it quite clear on June 18, Mr. Speaker, that the federal government per se was getting out of the estate tax and gift tax field. That is what the legislation provides. The provinces have asked for various things. Some have said, "We will go on our own", while others have said, "Would you collect them for us?" We are trying to get their opinions and find out whether there is anything we can do to help.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: I think my question is more a related one but it is directed to the Minister of Communications. Does the government intend to present a white paper on its policy or suggested policy toward the common carriers as an intermediate step between the paper recently published and any legislation that is brought in?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: and when there is any white paper to be presented, Mr. Speaker, it will be presented in the House.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister in a position to report progress in connection with his efforts to persuade the Canadian Pacific Railway to grant its pension increases to all of its retired employees, including in particular those who retired before January 1, 1956?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, unless the hon. member would agree that a further reference by me to the CPR on this particular point is progress, and I doubt if he would, I am afraid
Inquiries of the Ministry
that is all I have to report. I have conveyed to them again the views of many members of this House, including my own, but I have had no reply.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister keep at it?



AIRPORTS


Mr. Robert P. Kaplan (Don Valley):: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport when he will be ready to make public his proposals for the site of the second Toronto airport following his disclosure of them to the Ontario government early last April? Has the minister agreed to postpone his announcement until after the Ontario provincial election?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No,
to the last part of the question, Mr. Speaker. I believe it was on July 26 that I had an all-day meeting with the Minister of Transport of Ontario when I made additional proposals to him and had a full discussion of all related factors. He has subsequently written to me asking for further time in which to consider these. I believe the request is justified but I have replied that I should like to get their response as quickly as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: Just before calling orders of the day the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin).



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Following the Victoria conference, the province of Quebec has rejected the new amending formula for the Canadian constitution. I would appreciate being informed whether the Prime Minister of Canada has, since that date, met with the premier of Quebec. I would like also to know whether the premier of Quebec has submitted fresh proposals to the federal government concerning this amending formula?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If I may be
allowed to clarify the question, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would agree that the matter was not centred only on the amending formula, but on a whole set of proposals, since the positions as regards the amending formula itself had been drawn together. The question of the hon. member would apply to the set of proposals and the answer would be negative. No substantial discussions have taken place between the premier of Quebec and myself in this respect. He has only informed me, early this summer, that he had new proposals in mind and that he would submit them to me as soon as possible.

September 8, 1971
Employment Support Bill



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, September 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pepin that Bill C-262, to support employment in Canada by mitigating the disruptive effect on Canadian industry of the imposition of foreign import surtaxes or other actions of a like effect, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: In the course of some remarks I made before adjournment last night, Mr. Speaker, I called upon the government to indicate to the United States that it is prepared to advocate some tough measures against the continuing American protectionism. It is very difficult for us on this side, my party, to understand why this government is so afraid to spell out a position in the face of the trade war that has been started by the United States. The Minister of Finance, (Mr. Benson) in his speech yesterday, referred in vague terms to other measures that he had in mind. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the minister is absolutely contemptuous of this House when he does not tell us what sort of things the government has in mind. Certainly the bill before us, the measure that we are debating at this moment, offers almost no hope or no satisfaction in face of the problem.
It is difficult to understand of what this government is afraid. We in Canada are in one of the best positions of any nation to maintain an independent economy. We have raw materials, we have an educated population, we have all the things that any nation could hope to have, but despite all these advantages we suffer from a government that is frightened out of its wits-if it has any wits. It does not seem to have any idea how to handle the present situation. In the fight of history perhaps we should not expect anything more from a Liberal government, because the present state of uncertainty and the absence of any independent trade position flows from the fact that the Liberal party has always relied on the United States to solve Canada's problems. They have no policy and they never had a policy. From the early days of reciprocity, the Liberals always took the position that if things were all right in the United States they would be all right in Canada. This is the only position they have. It is not a position that makes any sense. It did not make any sense then and it certainly does not make any sense today.
It is humiliating beyond belief to think that a great country like Canada does not have a position of its own but has to lean like a cripple on the strength of some other nation for its prosperity. We deserve much better than that. We deserve better than that from our politicians and from that particular government. History
seems to indicate that Canada has always needed some sort of kick, if you will, to get it going. It was only after the failure of reciprocity in the early days of our history, and only after the breakdown of negotiations with the United States that we started to develop some semblance of national policies. The record is quite good. When we did develop those policies they proved to be effective. In times of war when we were very largely on our own and had to develop policies, we performed marvels of production and performed magnificently in the challenges of those times. At those times governments had to respond. We must realize that we are once more in this kind of crisis position. The time has passed when our governments can literally go begging to the United States and ask that country to save us by policies designed in the United States. To me, the government's behaviour represents a kind of cowardice that is camouflaged by statements such as "free trade", and, "do not start a trade war", as well as statements about the quiet diplomacy that this government seems so proud of but that has proven totally ineffective. Finally, we hear exhortations to be good neighbours, as though we do not want to be good neighbours.
Let me ask, where in the world is this free trade that they talk about today? We played our role during the Kennedy Round. We went a considerable distance in removing restrictions to trade. We had great hopes that those negotiations would result in the freeing of trade round the world. As we look today at what happened, what degree of satisfaction can we take from our position. The world, rather than becoming more inclined to accepting free trade, more inclined to accepting openness, has become restrictive in the extreme. We see this exemplified in countries like Japan, which has developed a very tight and controlled import policy. We also see this in the European Economic Community group of nations which tends to exclude imports from the other countries of the world. We can also see this in the response of the greatest protectionist country of all, the United States.
Let us make no mistake. The U.S. has been protectionist in the past and is again moving rapidly towards protectionism now. The only commodities they are willing to allow in are those they need badly because they no longer have them in abundance and because, without them, certain of their costs would be too high. The whole appeal for free trade is spurious. We are not moving in that direction. We may be the only people in the world who believe that free trade exists at this time or that there is any hope for it. The traditional position of the NDP, the group I am proud to be a member of and of the CCF which came before us, has always been in favour of free trade and for an international easing of restrictions. We still think that way today. There is nothing we want more than to see restrictions to trade removed. We must also be realistic and be aware of problems facing this nation. You do not help the world and you do not help yourself by closing your eyes to what is going on. All of us in this House have a responsibility to see that our ideals are matched by actions which will defend the interests of this nation. While working toward the objectives of international trade and communication, we must

September 8, 1971

make sure that the interests of this country receive the consideration that is necessary.
We have heard vague references about the starting of a trade war, as though Canada threw the first stone. The trade war, if there is one, was started by the United States. The American action to protect the American economy has thrown the whole world into turmoil. If a trade war develops in the world, it will not develop because of Canada's actions or because of the actions of other countries. It will develop as a result of the initiative taken by the United States, which will have started it. We do not know at this time what will happen as a result of those actions. The mood of the world is dangerous to an extreme, and that should not be minimized. Nevertheless, for our government to take a polyanna attitude and pretend the situation is not bad, for the government to say that we dare not take action for fear that our actions will precipitate a trade war, is complete nonsense. Ask yourself, if somebody comes along and plays the role of a bully, how do you respond? Do you think the bully will take into account the fact that you are being docile, that you are saying you are not being hurt very much so perhaps he will go away and find someone else to bash around? Or would you say, "If you want to fight, we have some weapons at our disposal; if you want to start a trade war in the world you must be prepared for other countries to return the compliment and respond."
There is no other way to head off this kind of thing except by taking that kind of strong position. I think Canada ought to take this kind of strong position, because if we wring our hands we will not convince some of the hard noses in the United States that their policy is not working. The protectionists in the United States will become convinced that their policy is not working only when they see that it is not in their interest to take measures of this kind. We in Canada must demonstrate conclusively that it is not in the interest of the United States to start a trade war. This we have not done, and it is important for us to do this even though we may not want to do it. After all, Canadians do not like doing things like that. We are not accustomed to being tough. We want to be friends with everyone. We want to be nice guys. That is a good trait; that is one of the nice things about Canadians. But that is not how we should behave at this time, because nice guys do not always win. I think that this is one time when we should show the other part of our character, the toughness of the people of this country and their willingness to defend their interests.
There is no evidence to show that the quiet diplomacy has been effective. Sometimes when Canadians have tried to raise their voices within the context of the quiet diplomacy, they have been humiliated. Witness the humiliation handed by President Johnson to a Canadian Prime Minister who dared raise his voice in a very quiet and polite way against the policies of the United States. That was an intolerable position, and I find it most distasteful and unnecessary. There is no need for this country to be in that position.
Let me say something else, Mr. Speaker. There is no doubt in my mind, and I am sure most of my confreres
Employment Support Bill
feel the same way, that we are in some ways fortunate to live beside the United States. The United States has its faults, as have other nations, but it is still a great nation. If I could choose my neighbours, I would just as soon choose the United States as my neighbour as any other country. I have many friends in the United States and that is true of many Canadians. There are many exchanges between our countries and many interrelationships between us. The question of our being good neighbours is, I think, beyond doubt. We share a continent and we have a common boundary. We have cultural links and many things that tie us together. Yet, being good neighbours does not mean that we must show weakness when we are being hurt. That does not help the situation. Even good neighbours have differences and the differences that we have with our neighbours to the south at the moment are very severe. I think we have been badly treated. Despite the willingness of Canadians to understand United States problems, the Americans have not taken our problems into consideration. We have not been treated as fairly as we have been entitled to expect.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has bragged that we have specialized industry. He said that with some degree of pride. I read his statement again and found that he spoke about specializing industry. Yes, we are a source of raw materials, not only to the United States now but also to Japan. Oh, we are very specialized, in the same way as a banana republic is specialized. I do not like that kind of specialization. If the minister is talking about our manufacturing industry he should not brag about specialization, because we have one of the worst industrial structures in the world. This has been brought about mostly by foreign ownership. There is nothing to brag about there. What the minister said only accentuates the difference between the world he lives in and the world of reality, the problems that we are talking about today. Faced with this kind of a situation, and with the kind of problems that have been created by the American protectionism, how effective can this present bill possibly be? Of what use are the proposals that the government has placed before us?
I see three major difficulties. There are others, but I will only talk about three. First, it puts off any real examination of our problems, any real attempt to find a solution to these problems. It is ridiculous to think that, faced with the kind of critical situation we now have, all the government can think of is to provide something like $80 million for compensation. As one newspaper man said to me as I was coming into the House today, why not save ourselves a lot of trouble setting up a board by simply giving the Americans $80 million to buy them off.
It is ridiculous to think that we can solve the problem with $80 million. We do not know how this money is going to be applied. Even the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) does not know. He was very vague. There is no criteria and no understanding. It is understandable that this is a difficult proposition. If I had to administer a board, I would not know how to start to assess the damage or what to do in a case like this. It is a

September 8, 1971
Employment Support Bill
case of a "do something situation". Businessmen will not buy this plan for those reasons. It is too vague. They do not understand it and they do not know where it is going. They do not know how to qualify or how it will affect their business. Further, there is a tremendous resentment building up among businessmen. After all, there are other problems with the economy in addition to the 10 per cent American surtax. There have been other examples of protectionism by the United States.
Businessmen will ask why they were not compensated previously. They will want to know why one fellow is entitled to compensation while others are not. The farmers and fishermen are not covered. Small business does not know to what extent it will be covered. All the consequences that will flow are unknown. This measure will not meet with the approval of the very businessmen it seems designed to please. The workers are worried and suspicious of a government that says it will help them by giving money to the firm for which they work. This results from the fact that in the past such measures have not redounded to the workers' benefit. There is not an automatic sequence. There may be some benefit in some cases, but in many cases there is not. The tax benefits, grants and hand-outs to industry have not resulted in better conditions or wages for workers.
Any way we look at it, this bill seems grossly inadequate and enormously misleading. If I had any reason to believe that this bill would help us, my colleagues and I would be willing to sit here continuously until it is passed, but there is no reason to believe that is the case. Therefore, I think that this measure should be examined far more closely and enormously modified before anything more is done with it. It is a gigantic put-on. If I may, I move:
That Bill C-262 be not now read a second time, but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, so that consideration can be given by that committee to the position of agriculture, fisheries and small business under the proposed legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before putting the proposed amendment to the House, I must advise hon. members that I have reservations about the procedural aspects of this amendment. Hon. members might feel that this is an unusual form of amendment. There is a better and established form of amendment which is the referral of the subject matter of the bill to a committee. I assume that this is what the hon. member wants to do and there would be no difficulty with the amendment if this were the only thing proposed. However, the hon. member has departed from the established form of amendment, he altered the recognized form and now proposes an alternative mode of action. I think that we should look at this type of amendment very closely before allowing it in our forms of procedure, but I am not ruling on the matter immediately.
I would be very grateful to hon. members who might enlighten and guide the Chair as to whether we should accept this kind of amendment as part of our procedure. I may be wrong in this regard and I would certainly be very objectively guided by the advice of hon. members on the point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your giving the opportunity for comments to be made before you rule on the procedural admissibility of this amendment. As Your Honour has pointed out, it is a standard practice to move that a bill be not now read, but that its subject matter be referred to a commission or standing committee. The only question that Your Honour raised is in connection with the latter part of my colleague's motion as to whether it is permissible to add anything to that simple reference of the subject matter.
There are some citations in this general area on pages 278 and 279 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, citations 386, 387 and one or two more that deal with the matter. For the moment I may seem to be taking Your Honour's side of the argument, but in those citations it is made quite clear that one cannot at the same time refer the subject matter of a bill and some of its provisions to a committee. In other words, one cannot by this method try to propose amendments in a devious way. That is why the amendment submitted by my colleague does not suggest any amendment to the bill. It simply states that the subject matter of the bill be studied by the committee and in that study the committee consider among other things the position of agriculture, fisheries and small business under the proposed legislation.
I fully recognize the difficulty Your Honour feels there is with regard to this, but it seems that because we have avoided any reference of specific clauses of the bill to the committee and because we have avoided making or suggesting any amendments to the bill, all we are doing in the latter part of the amendment is adding some words to ensure that when the committee considers the subject matter of the bill it will not overlook the position of agriculture, fisheries and small business under the proposed legislation. They are, in effect, illustrations of the kind of discussions that might be held in committee.
Before getting to my feet, I had a three second consultation with my colleague, the mover of this motion. He agreed that if the difficulty Your Honour posed is one that you feel you cannot surmount, we would be willing for Your Honour to put a period after the words "Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs" and let the motion simply stand as a reference of the subject matter. In other words, by this motion and the speeches that have been made, we have made it clear that we want the committee to consider this whole phase of the matter. I hope I have not given away the possibility of the entire amendment being allowed by suggesting this truncation. Knowing how fair Your Honour is, I am persuaded I am not doing anything of that sort. I hope Your Honour will see fit to allow the amendment as a whole. If not Your Honour might be willing to exercise a prerogative of the Chair by suggesting that the motion stop with a period after the words "Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs".


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton West appears moved to join in the argument, but I wonder whether that is necessary. I know he would refer me also to citation 386 at page 278 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edi-
[Mr. Saltsman.l
September 8, 1971

tion. I am grateful to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre for bringing that citation to my attention because it is, of course, entirely relevant. I must say it is very difficult to find a way around the citation. It seems to me that it is clear. It states:
The House cannot, under the guise of referring the subject matter to a committee, refer also certain provisions of the bill itself.
The hon. member has drawn attention to the fact that we would not be referring provisions of the bill, and I agree with him on this point. The proposed amendment contains the words "so that consideration can be given. .. to the position of agriculture, fisheries and small business under the proposed legislation." This is going beyond the reference of a subject matter. It is an instruction to consider certain provisions of the bill, which can only be done after the bill has been read the second time and referred to a committee. It seems to me we would be opening the door very wide to this kind of amendment if we were to depart from the well established form, that is, a motion to refer the subject matter of a bill.
As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has indicated, it is the intention of the mover of the amendment that certain matters be considered by the committee. I would hope the hon. member for Waterloo would find it acceptable to put a period after the words "Trade and Economic Affairs". With the consent of the House the amendment would then be modified along those lines so that it would read as follows:
That Bill C-262 be not now read a second time, but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


Max Saltsman: That would be agreeable to me.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: May I intervene, Mr. Speaker? I would have suggested to Your Honour that it was not possible to use that particular language in the amendment because it would amount to mere tautology. The motion before us is that the bill be read a second time and go to the committee for consideration. Now we have a motion that the bill be not read a second time, yet still the subject matter must go to the same committee.


An hon. Member:: But not the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: That is a point I have in my mind, but I believe there is a difference between referring the subject matter and referring the bill itself. The very point of this type of amendment is that instead of referring a certain bill, use is made of a system we have devised over the years, a system which provides for the referral of the subject matter of a bill. If this amendment were carried, the subject matter would go to a committee, there would be a report from that committee and eventually the bill itself would come back to the House with the reference.
The difference is slight, I appreciate, but at the same time I believe the form of the amendment is the correct one, therefore the Chair has to accept it and put it to the House, which is what I have done.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The bill before us, entitled "an act to support employment in
Employment Support Bill
Canada by mitigating the disruptive effect on Canadian industry of the imposition of foreign import surtaxes or other actions of a like effect" is, of course, a response to the action recently taken by the United States, introducing a surtax directed against not only manufactured products and other products made in this country but against similar products made by trading nations throughout the world.
I would say at the outset that the worst kind of speech anyone could make in this Parliament today would be a speech which would lead its hearers to conclude that the man making it was feeding like a political leech on the adversities of the present government. I intend to avoid that pitfall. Nevertheless, I want to emphasize at this point, as I shall again at the end of my address, that the government cannot conceal its economic bungling by endeavouring to blame the United States of America for the unhappy economic situation which exists today and which existed before President Nixon announced that the time had come for a new United States economic policy directed against unemployment, inflation and international speculation. I have listened to the debate so far, particularly to the speeches made by hon. members to my left who seem to blame the United States for our present difficulties. But I have not heard any really constructive proposals from them. The suggestion has been made before by me that if the Europeans can form a common market to promote and protect the trading interests of Europe, then maybe it is time to organize an American common market composed of Canada, the United States, Mexico and some of the countries of South America. Possibly an agreement could be worked out along these lines.
I do not intend to hurl reproaches and incriminations at the United States for what has been done. Nevertheless, I do wish to say a few words about the facts as they are today and add one or two positive suggestions as my contribution to the debate.
On August 15, 1971, President Nixon inaugurated a series of economic reforms which will affect not only the United States but all the industrialized nations whose economies are linked with the United States, or who trade extensively with the United States, Canada in particular. Even before this date the Canadian economic situation was such as to produce high unemployment, stagnation having set in as a result of the bungling economic policies followed by the government. It is interesting, I believe, to read what the Gazette had to say about the situation existing prior to the imposition of the surtax. That situation will, of course, be aggravated by the effects of the surtax, and, in addition, it will be made worse by any rise in the value of the Canadian dollar as compared with the United States dollar in terms of purchasing power. This is what the Gazette had to say, and the Gazette has not always been unfriendly to hon. members opposite.
Despite massive spending on social programs, poverty remains as intractable a problem as ever; it cannot be otherwise, of course, when both costs and the wages of unionized workers are rising at a faster rate than government payments to individuals possibly can.

September 8, 1971
Employment Support Bill
In other words, no inroads of any significance have been made on poverty since the government took over. The Gazette is saying that the policies of the government were failing on a large scale long before the Nixon administration implemented the surtax and other related measures.
There has been a good deal of public disagreement in Canada as to how bad an eifect the 10-per-cent American surcharge will have on Canadian exports to that country. It is obvious, however, that the effect is not going to be good, however wide or narrow the range of Canadian commodities affected.
The Trudeau government's plan to pump money into the industries that will be hit most severely by the surcharge can only be a short-term measure.
I go further than the Gazette and say that not only will it be a short-term measure but the $80 million poured into the industrial might of this country will be just peanuts when it comes to solving the problem of keeping trade flowing between Canada and the United States.
In this context some of our public utilities are of importance. For example, if we can afford to spend $700 million on building a new international airport and $100 million on a bilingualism program to enable us better to understand our two languages, then surely at a time when the industrial might and the jobs of Canada are at stake this nation can afford to spend more than $80 million, even if the approach adopted by the government is, in fact, a viable solution.
Let me come to grips with the basic premise of my argument: as far as I am concerned this whole plan is peanuts. I am sure that the prayers of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) with regard to this $80 million are not going to solve very much within the next three months. It seems to me that hon. members from Quebec and Ontario, particularly Ontario, in constituencies whose industries are so much at stake must be really concerned that this "big hearted" government is only prepared to pump $80 million into this program. As I say, I regard it as peanuts as far as solving the problem at this time is concerned. Without trade, Canada will fade and jobs will fade.
Even before President Nixon's emergency measures of August 15 raised questions about the economic outlook, labour force surveys indicated that unemployment this winter would probably be just under 6 per cent on a seasonally adjusted basis. So, even aside from the surtax problem and the question of the current exchange rate, about which I shall have something to say in a moment, unemployment would have been serious. It has been estimated that 630,000 people are going to be out of work during the three worst winter months of this year, whereas last winter the average unemployment in the winter months was 664,000. In addition to this number of unemployed, this surcharge is going to be imposed on exports to the United States. This will make our products uncompetitive. We have already had competition from the industrial might of Japan, West .Germany and other trading nations whose gross national product has grown much faster than ours. So I suggest it is well within the estimation, or within imagination if not within estimation, that this winter we could have one million unemployed. This is why I think we are now debating one of the most serious economic situations to face Canada since 1929.
The increase in employment from March to July this year was equal to 3.6 per cent at annual rates, which showed some improvement. But data show that much of the new work created was part time or temporary in nature, and that many jobs were in special student programs. Pausing there, I might say that this summer wherever one went throughout Canada one saw young people on the highways and in the cities crowded together. Some of these people had university degrees and had received special training, yet they had no jobs. Many of them have not been able to earn enough money to return to university. Things have not been as bad as this since 1929, the beginning of the world depression.
At this point economists are concentrating on the trend in manufacturing jobs, for these are the industries which could hire the skilled adult men laid off during a recession. Gains in manufacturing have been modest, though there were signs of improvement in July. It is against this rather pessimistic backdrop that the United States economic controls program is adding to the worries of the government.


Mr. Noble:: They are not worried.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then they should be. The surcharge hits manufacturing in two ways, as we heard from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Companies in now buoyant industries will have trouble increasing their sales in the vital United States market, so they will delay hiring more workers. If necessary, of course, if there is sufficient fall-off in trade they will lay off numbers of workers, described by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce as in the tens of thousands. Companies in other industries could lose sales if the surcharge continues for long, and may end up laying off workers and creating further structural unemployment.
I want now to discuss a matter that has not been discussed by the media as freely as it might have been. Surely, the surcharge of 10 per cent affects our ability to trade at peak levels. Not long ago the Canadian dollar was set free to float on the exchange market. As a result of unpegging the dollar, it has now reached almost par value with the United States dollar. In other words, about 8 per cent has been tagged on to the cost of Canadian exports. Some hon. members do not like to return to arguments of previous days, but let me remind them what happened when the former government under the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbak-er) pegged the dollar. Liberal members in those days, some of whom are still in the House, wandered across the industrial parts of Ontario pointing out that the Canadian dollar was not worth anything. Yet as soon as the government opposite got into power it kept the dollar pegged for years until it was freed by the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson).
How is this going to affect industries not only in Ontario but throughout all Canada? For example, let me deal with a few particular industries. What is the effect
tMr. Woolliams.]
September 8, 1971

going to be on the beef industry, or on the wheat farmers? As a result of the situation I have described, producers are getting less for their products because they receive fewer U.S. dollars when they export their commodities to the United States.
Let me now deal with the situation in Alberta in Western Canada. I was rather surprised to hear the leader of the New Democratic Party talk of imposing a tax on exported natural gas and petroleum. Although I can see his side of the argument that there is a shortage of energy in the United States, nevertheless the United States still has to purchase its natural gas from Canada, though they may be able to buy crude petroleum elsewhere as they have in the past. Some members of that party oppose any export of natural gas at all; at least, they seem to go that far.
I recall that the same kind of argument was used with respect to the coal industry some years ago. People claimed that if we continued to export coal we would exhaust our coal resources. I would point out that the province of Alberta has one-eighth of the world's supply of coal, even though it has been and still is exporting coal not only to the western part of the United States but also in large quantity to Japan. So these people seem to have a very narrow viewpoint, rather a reactionary one, when they talk in this way of our extractive industries. These exports are the reason we have a good balance of trade with the United States at the present time. After all, Mr. Speaker, we can only use so much of these products in our own domestic market since we have only 20 million people to the United States' 200 million. This is why production per unit costs more in Canada than it does in the United States; their domestic market is so much larger than ours. But my point is that it seems to be a very reactionary answer to this problem to talk of taxing exports of natural gas and petroleum. Indeed, I regard it as no answer at all.
As I said at the beginning, perhaps we will find the answer from some new thought or new idea that should be examined, perhaps with a view to forming some kind of North American common market consisting of the United States, Canada and other countries in this hemisphere. In this way we, too, would have a bloc to meet competition from Europe and Asia who today are competitors of Canada as well as the United States.
As I was saying, major exports from Alberta are petroleum, natural gas and other associated products. These exports to the United States will luckily not be subject to any surcharge. In 1970 Alberta exported $205 million worth of crude oil. I believe this figure will increase as a result of demand and relaxing of quotas. It also exported $665 million worth of natural gas to the United States. If we price ourselves out of the market in this field of energy, society will turn to another form of energy. We witnessed this in the last 20 years when we priced ourselves out of the market for hard coal from the foothills of the Rockies in Alberta. It was used by the railroads, not only in Canada but in the United States as well. These conditions are applicable to oil and crude petroleum. If we price ourselves out of the market for
Employment Support Bill
natural gas or petroleum, the same situation will occur. It may take some time but it will happen.
There was another Lewis in North America, John L., who made a big contribution to putting the coal industry and its employees out of business altogether. It struck me when the NDP leader was dealing with the surcharge on natural gas and petroleum that he is foolish enough to follow some of the recommendations made at that time, which is so totally reactionary. It is amazing that when I listen to the NDP members of Parliament that they seem always to be criticizing United States business interests operating in Canada. I am a Canadian and they have no monopoly on the philosophy that Canadians should control and invest in their own industries. Members of that party never say one word about the influence of that same country on the unions they represent. This is a two-edged sword. There is too much influence by the United States in this country, but there will have to be answers in respect of business as well as the unions of which they speak. If influence is wrong in one field it is wrong in the other field. I might say that many labour unions exist in my riding and have since I came to this place. I have talked to union men and they are concerned about their own unions in this regard, just as businessmen are concerned about investment of Canadian money in our industries. We hear one side of the situation from these NDP members, many of whom have been counsel for the USA unions operating in Canada but we never hear about the other side of the coin. We just hear about little pink items.
In reference to the problem which has risen between Canada and the United States, it is certainly unfortunate something has not been worked out. What has the government been doing? It went to the United States and asked that the surcharge be removed. What happened previous to that? What has been the reaction of this government and its members in respect of the United States? The reaction has not been one of diplomacy in an attempt to work out our problems in a constructive, logical and economic manner. Charles Lynch put it this way on August 17, 1971:
When you cut away the excess verbiage from President Nixon's statement, it sounds remarkably like the sort of things Prime Minister Trudeau and Finance Minister Benson have been saying about Canada for the last two years.
When we go to Washington to plead for special status, what will we be willing to offer the United States in return? We have made it pretty clear that we want to keep free of their apron strings-Mr. Trudeau delivered that message quite forcefully in the Soviet Union, when he talked about how much we worry about our neighbour to the south.
Even when these ministers talk about military things I can never understand them. We have a border of approximately 4,500 miles. I do not think there is a longer border between two countries in the world, and on this one we have no guns or armaments.
Mr. Zink in the Telegram of August 18 said this:
Since it took office in 1968, the Trudeau regime missed no opportunity for kicking our neighbour to the south in the shin.

September 8, 1971
Employment Support Bill
If salesmen are ogling to sell insurance or work successfully in offices, they must obtain the confidence of their clients or customers. I have never heard of selling anything or working out a diplomatic deal by kicking a fellow in the shins, unless one is such a bully he will kick the man so hard that he never gets up. Canadians do not believe in that kind of diplomacy. We must remember what Mr. Trudeau said, that we are sleeping with an elephant. I, for one, would not want to kick an elephant in the shin, particularly if I wanted to get along with him. I do not think the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) believes in that philosophy, although it sounds good on the hustings. Perhaps it is an easy way to get votes, but kicking the so-and-so out of the United States does not solve anything. Some leaders have been trying this for years. Some dictators have followed policies to build up hate.
Mr. Zink went on to state:
The kicks were calculated to be particularly painful in the sensitive areas of foreign defence and trade policies.
For good measure, some of Prime Minister Trudeau's ministers (for example, Joe Greene in his Denver speech) went out of their way to add insult to injury.
I might suggest the Minister of Finance has a credibility gap as big as the mouth of the St. Lawrence, and of course there is a lot of pollution there. The finance minister is polluting the Canadian economic stream just as effectively as we have polluted our environment.
Mr. Zink went on to say:
Instead, the Trudeau government, which has done its foolish utmost in helping the totalitarians to push the U.S. into political and strategic isolation, is rushing a delegation to Washington to plead for exemption from the Nixon-announced import restrictions on account of the interdependence and, for all practical intents and purposes, the indivisibility of our two economies.
Mr. Kipling in the Financial Times of August 23, 1971 said:
Insiders said that the government had no choice but to dispatch a mission to Washington to protest and to argue Canada's case. To do nothing seemed politically disastrous; to have gone cap in hand would have been humiliating and useless; to threaten would have been inviting a trade war.
Let me quote now what Mr. Malcolm Montgomery of Toronto said in a letter published in the Globe and Mail on August 20, 1971:
It is difficult to perceive how the leaders of our two countries could work in the spirit of friendly co-operation when they do not have personal contact.
Many times since this government has been in office I have asked whether it was prepared to extend an invitation to the President of the United States to visit Canada. During my time we have had the privilege and the pleasure of hosting a visit by Eisenhower, at which time many of our economic problems were worked out. We then had the privilege and pleasure of a visit by the late President Kennedy. I could look up the date in Hansard when I asked the question, whether Nixon would be invited to Canada. It shows that the Prime Minister brushed aside the suggestion and said no. This government is now on its knees and wants the President to make a visit to this country.
Mr. Montgomery went on to state in his letter:
Prime Minister Trudeau seems to be busy planning trips to China, Russia, Yugoslavia and the West Indies, and yet he does not find time to go as far as Washington.
President Nixon has re-acquainted our government in Ottawa with the realities of life. Our government cannot be nationalistic and anti-American in one moment and continentalism the next. Friendship is a two-way relationship.
This government has to mend its ways and work out its problems with the United States in a diplomatic, logical and economic way. On many occasion we have asked the United States for exemptions in respect of certain taxes and those problems have been worked out. What has taken place in the past has been the result of diplomacy. Perhaps this government should enlist the assistance of a former leader, Mr. Pearson. He was a man of diplomacy and did not insult his neighbours. We cannot talk to the United States as this Prime Minister has and then send our boys to Washington with their hats in their hands in the hope of working something out.


An hon. Member:: Perhaps we should send Dief.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Let's turf them out. Never mind Ben, send him down permanently.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If $80 million will provide a solution, then I suggest this is peanuts. If the government really believes in this plan, why set the amount at $80 million? If we can afford $600 million or $700 million to establish an airport we should pour more money into this project to save the jobs of Canadians and preserve our industries for our future generations. When we hear that there may be another 10,000 persons laid off in three months in this area and 10,000 in that area, when we talk about $80 million to stimulate industry this is totally acceptable because social welfare for unemployed will cost more. I would like to have the figure this afternoon, which is not ascertainable at the moment, to show what welfare costs Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, Halifax, Hamilton and all the other centres of Canada. If in the next few months those figures do not add up to what the government is trying to offer industry, then I believe I could back up the argument about this program being just a bag of peanuts thrown out. The government has frightened industry for the past three years with talk of tax reform. They held out the idea that there would be a tough tax policy and then retreated by introducing a bill which, as the Canadian Bar Association said, when the Bill was drafted only the drafters and God understood it, now only God knows what it means. That is the atmosphere in which business has to operate today.
Had the government come in with tax cuts and incentives to industry much of this trouble with management and labour, as well as many of the problems in respect of competition with the rest of the world and in Canada would have been solved. The real situation is that the government is not going to take the responsibility for this peanut program. It is to be handed over to a board. We do not know what it is to be. They say it is nothing. It

September 8, 1971

will be here today and gone tomorrow. It is like a magician with a rabbit; it is gone. The board is to adjudicate as to who will get the money. They tell us not to worry about the formula. They will go to cabinet one day and pass the regulations. There is no indication what the formula is to be. It is to be handed to a board to be jockeyed about in a political manner in the hope of saving this government. It will take more than that to save this bungling government. The public is pretty knowledgeable now about the economic weaknesses of this government.
The Montreal Gazette says that even in the days of the uncertainty, bungling and retraction of Pearson, the government was never in the position it is in now. It cannot operate and govern this country. This newspaper speaks for many people across this country. It is time for a change now. It will not be very difficult to sell that to the Canadian people.


Mr. Perrault:: Make it political now.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I would not do that because we know you are a statesman. In conclusion, I would say we should be now working toward a North American common market that would work out some of our economic problems in the same manner as the European Common Market has. This could not be done overnight. We should bring in immediately tax incentives and tax cuts for industry. If this program is to work at all, there should be enough money put into it to save the jobs of Canadians. In fact it should be sufficient not only to save the jobs which exist now but to get industry moving so that it can give jobs to the 500,000 or 600,000 people who are now out of work in Canada.
Had I had this kind of argument from the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) I would have some hope of a solution to this problem which the government created because of its relations with the United States. We have heard the Minister of Finance, but we cannot accept or believe one word. He has never been right in one of his predictions. His credibility gap is as wide as the mouth of the St. Lawrence. We know why the hearty, good-natured Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce was asked to pilot this bill through the House. The government knows that no one in Canada could accept the predictions of the Minister of Finance with reference to the Department of Finance or with reference to acceleration of trade. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I hope some of us still have our eardrums intact. To try and put things in context, I should like us to think back to our concerns in the weeks preceding President Nixon's startling announcement of his emergency economic measures. Our economy was sluggish. We had come through one of the most difficult periods in postwar years. We had been largely successful in containing the rate of inflationary acceleration but were, as we are still, enduring an unacceptably high rate of unemployment. We were, however, seeing some signs of hope, some rays of light.
The recent expansionary budget and the announcement of the tax reform proposals had removed a great deal of
Employment Support Bill
uncertainty which previously prevailed and permitted business to plan with a greater degree of certainty and optimism. The vast majority of Canadians could look forward to lower personal taxes. Those unemployed would benefit from legislation which would provide substantially improved benefits. Old age pensioners without significant supplementary income and pensioned veterans were beneficiaries of more generous benefits-benefits somewhat closer to those a society as affluent as ours should provide, though still less in many cases than what was needed or we would wish. The tax reductions to senior citizens and all in the lower income groups, in addition to the increases in pensions and other benefits such as those mentioned, and others proposed such as increased family allowances, would inject hundreds of millions of immediately disposable dollars into the economy, which would give much needed stimulus.


An hon. Member:: Author?


Barnett Jerome Danson: The author is speaking. There were real signs of change in the economy. It was somewhat spotty and a bit hesitant, but, in my foray into the real world away from Parliament Hill during the recess, I encountered many encouraging signs-a cautious optimism and some indication in many areas of a genuine turnaround The construction industry, stimulated by a major and highly welcome improvement in housing starts, perhaps the most effective stimulus to economic growth, was, and is, increasing activity in a multitude of supplier industries and those others which benefit by increased housing occupancies.
Business generally had survived a most difficult year with leaner inventories and more efficient operations forced on them by the pause in what had been years of unprecedented growth. It was in a position to expand more efficiently and thus competitively in export markets and against imports. It was, and is, ready to respond to the consumer demand released by the benefits and tax reductions, as well as the easing of the purse strings on the immense savings of cautious and prudent Canadians which had accumulated in the fight against inflation and in the less buoyant and less optimistic economic climate. Canada had, relative to other nations, come through well, though not without cruel costs in employment.
There was, however, Mr. Speaker, one great source of concern. This was an external concern over which we had no significant control, namely, the health of the American economy. Their inflation remained unchecked, as did their rate of unemployment increase. One could not detect the elements of hope in their economy that we could in ours. Indeed, they faced a crisis which could plunge them into an even more serious recession and drag us down with them. This would happen, I believe, regardless of the degree of their ownership of our industry. It can and will happen at any time, simply because their economy is so immense, because they are by far our major market and the health of their economy sets the tone, to a significant extent, for the entire western world.
This is not the time to engage in chauvinistic and totally unrealistic temper tantrums. Neither is it con-

September 8, 1971
Employment Support Bill
structive to say what the U.S. should or could have done a few months or a couple of years ago. Nor is any self-righteous posturing on our part likely to be either helpful or appreciated. It was critical to us that the U.S. do something to improve their economy. It was vital, in order to have the essential psychological impact domestically and to gain nationwide support, that it be decisive and dramatic. This was not only necessary domestically but internationally, in order to have the effect on overvalued currencies the U.S. desired, an affect that will ultimately militate to Canada's benefit if effective.
In this respect it is also interesting to reflect on our own Minister of Finance's (Mr. Benson) remarkable clairvoyance in the week or so preceding President Nixon's announcement. If you recall, he predicted that rather than devalue the U.S. dollar the Americans would resort to other means which would effectively achieve devaluation without calling it that. If I recall correctly, he used the somewhat indelicate term "sneaky ways" which, with his usual sensitivity and wisdom, he quickly qualified in more delicate phraseology. In any event, he was dead on.
Well, the U.S. has acted. The action appears to have broad acceptance in the U.S., and is even gaining the support of those who at first opposed some of the measures. With this broad base of support, the beneficial effects are likely to have substantial success in the shortest possible time. In my view, this time factor is critical, for the surcharge can have devastating effects on other nations and none more so than ours. These adverse effects can increase almost geometrically each week the surcharge remains.
As we, and others, are dependent on the health and vitality of the U.S. economy, so the U.S. is dependent on the health of the world economy. While exports are only some 4 per cent of the U.S. GNP they may appear to have only a marginal role, but their relationship to the U.S. balance of payments is significant. Of equal, if not greater significance is the health of the economies of other nations in which the U.S. has a major economic presence through investment and subsidiary involvement by way of U.S. based multi-national corporations which contribute substantially to their balance of payments condition.
The U.S. cannot forget these factors for a minute. If they do so, they do so at their peril for the rest of the world cannot stand idly by indefinitely. This action hurts, and hurts Canada far less justifiably than any other nation. If it is effective in turning the U.S. economy around quickly, and by this I do not mean solve all the problems instantly but point it in the right direction, the damage to our economy will be far less than the lack of such action by the U.S. for, as I have suggested, this absence of policy would have greater long-term detrimental effects on Canada than others.
Should they not soon remove the surcharge we, in concert with others, must also take actions which will protect our own legitimate interests. I believe it would be both ineffective and suicidal for nations individually to take retaliatory action. It would likely produce a competitive tariff war and other restrictive measures which could undermine many of the international trade
arrangements which are already sufficiently imperilled by the U.S. action and the sub-surface desires-not to mention devious practices-of others. In addition, each action by itself would act as an annoying pinprick to the U.S., which would evoke a further protective response from them. Indeed, it would enrage our neighbourly elephant into a rampage or stubborn introversion, which could only be harmful to all.
The Americans are practical people and also hard bargainers. They have the bit in their teeth for the moment, and I suspect that it will be difficult to change their direction until they have run their course a bit and expended some of the political energy domestically. Using the crop with such a powerful and energetic mare can prove counter-productive. When she has tired herself a bit, and sees that she is leading herself further from her stable and could damage herself seriously if she continued to rampage, the bit will slip out of her teeth. She might then be even more receptive to the gentle pressure of the reins than to jabs of the spurs. Knowing there is a crop in hand, too, doesn't necessarily control a mighty beast, but it does have a sobering influence.
I genuinely hope that this won't be necessary, but if our interests continue to be imperilled I think that the greatest influence can be exerted by the joint actions of America's friends and trading partners, who jointly possess greater leverage and can act together in an orderly manner. Canada can take a responsible lead in this respect. We must also realize that many of the factors which the U.S. hopes to rectify, particularly the revaluation of the yen, are factors which are having an adverse impact on our own economy.
We are dealing with a disease which is highly contagious. We are better to see it dealt with decisively, even if there is some damage to the surrounding tissue, rather than be permitted to spread. We should do our best to assist in its immunization and containment. In this process some Canadian industry is going to be hurt; some moderately and some severely. I would urge that we do not panic or, more positively, as has been counselled, that we keep our cool. I know of businessmen who were certain that the floating of our dollar would have unbearable effects on their businesses, which were highly dependent on the U.S. market. Incredibly, our exports and trade balance improved with our strengthened dollar-the reverse of that which one would expect and a good indication that sensible, far-sighted and fair policies can bring their own good results. This is a lesson others might learn and, hopefully, appreciate when the bargaining starts again in earnest.
The difficulty is that some are seriously injured in this process and it is the fear of this, sometimes short-term reaction both economic and political, which can distort policy. Many of those who are adversely affected were in difficulty in any event and were being artificially sustained, many unknowingly protected, by conditions which did not reflect the true forces of economics. None the less, the injury is there and it will take a considerable amount-of knowledge, wisdom and instinct for those charged with making the judgement on the fact and extent of injury to make a balanced, fair judgment. I urge, how-
[Mr. Danson.l
September 8, 1971

ever, that those industries which are highly labour intensive, and those which possess a high degree of unique or valuable technology and skills, be given the benefit of doubt in each case.
Special consideration, urgent priority consideration and action must be given to smaller businesses, which usually have critical cash flow and equity problems. These companies may be overlooked because of their size, or nyght be forced under by undue delay. If there are those that are eligible for consideration, they are particularly precious to our society and economy. In relation to our export market which is endangered, they are usually efficient companies; they often possess unique technology or design and they reflect an entrepreneurship which should be nurtured. In addition, they are usually Canadian owned.
I would urge that the government indicate to the banks its hope that they will give such companies special consideration in the period before rulings on and payments for injury are made. Indeed, the banks are in a special position to offer invaluable service to both their customers and the government in bringing such cases to the attention of the board and assisting in assessing their situation. Banking personnel are particularly qualified in such a situation, and generally intimately familiar with the status of a business, its markets, opportunities and vulnerability. They also have a vested interest which could make total objectivity difficult for them, but any understandable distortion in this area would usually be in their customers' interest and likely in the interest of the economy. In any event their intimate knowledge would be of considerable value to the tribunal and should be encouraged and supported.
The entire situation is a disturbing one, but need not be disastrous. I have just returned from the United Kingdom and Europe, where the uncertainty is causing considerable concern. Because we are closer to the U.S., because our economies are so closely intermeshed and because of Canada's admired record and leadership in the past as well as because of what might surprise some Canadians, but few who know him, the respect in which our Minister of Finance is held internationally, Europe looks to us for leadership.
Our credentials are good. Our posture on U.K. entrance to the Common Market is greatly appreciated and has some of the elements of this current crisis. Initially, some Canadian exports will be hurt. Some, regrettably, will lose their markets completely, but again we must not assume this. In the long run, and it need not be too long, it should result in a more prosperous and greater market for our goods in all of Europe. Indeed, for many of our exporters, this presents a unique opportunity.
Canadians presently doing business in the U.K. should now be negotiating their arrangements with their traditional customers there, so that they might continue the maximum amount of trade under EEC conditions. Once they have found a viable formula for doing business with Britain in the common market they will, at the same time, have developed the formula for doing business with
24171-63J
Employment Support Bill
other common market nations. This is an area where many Canadians have been timid, so they might well take this as a challenge and opportunity for exploiting a rich and growing market. At the same time, this will assist in what should be a never-ending endeavour to diversify our markets, so that our dependency on the most massive and convenient market to the south of us is lessened. I certainly do not suggest a diversion of trade; indeed, we must continue to expand our exports to the U.S., but we should take off our blinkers and expand our horizons to new areas where we are welcome and where this government has been taking energetic initiatives. Our own trade officers at home and abroad are particularly qualified and anxious to help, but they cannot do the job for Canadian businessmen. Businessmen must be on the ground themselves, but the way can be opened through our trade offices abroad.
This legislation is not intended as a panacea for all the difficulties the U.S. action causes us. It is one method in which we can act to at least protect industry and jobs which are especially vulnerable. Some of my friends opposite, to the left of the official opposition, would like to see this measure withdrawn or delayed so that we could replace it with an entirely new policy on foreign ownership and a new industrial policy for Canada. These gentlemen well know that such policies are being formulated and that they must not be completed without the greatest long-term thought and consideration-unless, of course, one were to accept their simplistic and utterly disastrous little formulas. To delay this present bill borders on a negligence which is almost criminal and is at the expense of the very workers they alone piously assume to represent.
Certainly, there will be difficulties and some inequities. This is certain to happen in any case where there is broad government intervention and where normal economic forces are distorted. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is a highly undesirable situation, caused by the even greater distortion resulting from the American action. The sooner all such unnatural distortions are lessened or eliminated, the better for all.
The board itself has an unenviable job. It will have to exercise the wisdom of Solomon in its deliberations and decisions. It will be under immense pressures and time will be its enemy. Nevertheless, it must get into action quickly and I am confident that its action will go a long way to mitigate the consequences in unemployment, industrial and trade disruption that will surely follow from the imposition of the U.S. surcharge.
I would hope too, that one of the representatives from the private sector on the board would be a representative of organized labour. This will bring a necessary, specialized viewpoint and perspective. I am sure that the minister's statement did not preclude such an appointment, and in any event, it is the worker whom this bill is intended to protect. I think it must be frightening to the thoughtful worker to have the impression given that the views of the New Democratic Party are automatically his. Even more cause for alarm would be the mistaken impression that he must depend on them to look after his

September 8, 1971
Employment Support Bill
interests. I, personally, would find this a terrifying fate for people who deserve better.
It is interesting to observe that some American labour leaders who originally opposed some aspects of the emergency U.S. policy, quickly changed their tune when they found that their obstructionist reflex actions were out of step with the views of their rank and file membership. The NDP had better rethink their position before they do irreparable harm by their obstructionist tactics. I had hoped, too, Mr. Speaker, that we could give further thought to measures which are essential to our long term wellbeing. By that I do not mean to delay this vital legislation in any way, but after and beyond it.
To compete on today's market, we must take measures to improve our productivity. It is only in this way that we can assure our long term independence and survival. Those concerned with the degree of foreign domination of our economy had better think of ways for us to do better ourselves, rather than restrictive measures that will not stand the test of economic realism. Economic realism is a positive manifestation of negative economic nationalism. This will require better management training and practices. It requires imaginativeness and encouragement to technological innovation and entrepreneurship. It will require a better understanding of what profit is and how it is directed. There is a significant school of thought which somehow considers profit per se as evil. There are those who would like to see profit reduced or eliminated without considering the critical importance of profit in investment, in research, in the risk-taking which creates new and better paying jobs. I am not suggesting that all profit is sacred, or that excessive profit-particularly that at the expense of monopolistic or exploitive labour practices-can or should be tolerated, but profit is going to be essential to the process of taking advantage of our own opportunities and resources.
I would like to see a less timid approach to the encouragement of productivity by greater capital investment. Presently, there is some slight encouragement by permitting capital cost allowance on 115 per cent of the value of a new capital asset. I suggest that this is hardly worthwhile at all. It amounts to some 3 per cent per year and is inadequate to affect investment decisions, yet is costly to the treasury in its aggregate effect. One of the greatest periods of industrial and job expansion in Canada was in the early fifties when we had a system of double depreciation. The U.S. downturn, perhaps coincidentally-I am not sure it is all coincidental-followed the removal of their 7 per cent additional writeoff on capital equipment. They have now replaced this with a new 10 per cent additional writeoff incentive on U.S. built equipment, a factor which adds to our problems in addition to the 10 per cent surcharge. Britain, in its efforts to spur industrial growth and efficiency, is now allowing an 80 per cent writeoff in the first year. I believe we should study these moves carefully and if they suit our circumstances, and I believe they do, we should be prepared to act in a similar manner. I also believe that we should initiate a productivity program with labour, management and government co-operating to find the means to increase our competitive position and thus our standard
of living and level of employment. It is possible that our failure to give proper priority to this area may well seriously threaten our ability even to maintain the status quo.
I would challenge those who call themselves economic nationalists,-and I call myself an economic nationalist- but especially those who wring their hands in anguish and blame others for our condition, to find those positive ways to ensure our independent survival and lesser dependence on external forces. Many of our youth are properly questioning our traditional values. This leads to a rejection of involvement in the industrially productive segments of our society. I would challenge them to opt in before they mature in a society and economy which has been completely dominated by foreign interests or those domestic interests which do not share their idealism or values.
The truly admirable response of youth to the challenge of the Opportunities for Youth program, for all its imperfections, has shown that they want to opt into society energetically and constructively. This response is a counter-challenge to us to respond with wise direction and opportunity to harness their enthusiasm and idealism constructively. In seeing them and speaking to them over the summer, I am convinced of the rightness of motivation in the Opportunities for Youth Program and the need to refine and continue it. I further believe that we should give very serious consideration to a program of voluntary non-military national service. The invaluable infrastructure of the armed forces could be utilized, particularly as Canada's forces are winning increasing respect from this segment of our population. By the same token, our industrial infrastructure could be utilized to channel our interested youth into the economic mainstream of our life.
I am, however, drifting from the main focus of this debate. We are discussing emergency legislation to deal with this, and perhaps unforeseen, emergency situations. This requires fast action and a minimum of delay while ensuring adequate parliamentary scrutiny. I hope all members of this House, and particularly those members of the committee to which this bill is being referred, will direct their energies to improving and passing this bill, rather than engaging in partisan tactics in an effort to place the blame for the actions of another government onto this one, or to drag up the past in bitter recrimination.
In concluding, and since this debate deals with economics, Mr. Speaker, I would not wish to resume my seat without taking this first opportunity to publicly pay tribute to the retiring chairman of the Economic Council of Canada. Arthur Smith has been an outstanding chairman of this excellent body and has proven himself a distinguished Canadian. In his eight years with the Council, four as Chairman, he has served with dedication and distinction. Under his leadership, the work and reports of the Council have served a unique and valuable role for all levels of government and industry. The reports themselves have been amongst the most valuable and interesting reading available to parliamentarians and officials. Certainly, there is room for disagreement with aspects of

September 8, 1971

the reports, but in the inexact science of economics they have made an outstanding contribution through their quality and forecasting. Because one does not accept good advice is no reason for criticizing the adviser. I, for one, hope that Arthur Smith's role can be filled with someone who can achieve, in time, his degree of professional skill and integrity. For those of us who have had the opportunity of benefiting from his advice, sometimes appreciating its true value only with hindsight, I would wish this thorough gentleman well in his new endeavours and extend thanks for his service to this nation.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my remarks I would first like to endorse the previous speaker's remarks in connection with the Chairman of the Economic Council of Canada. I suggest that the latter has fulfilled a most important role and has been exceptionally courageous by submitting truly objective reports and by demonstrating to the government and to the House the true situation in the various areas of our economy. I am convinced that he is a Canadian who has rendered great services to Canada and that we, as Members of Parliament, would be well advised if we always consulted his reports to find what orientation should be given to the economic policy that must be adopted to ensure the well-being of all citizens.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I will return to discussion of Bill C-262, which aims to support employment in Canada and which has been introduced in the House in view of the imposition by the United States of a 10 per cent surtax on their imports. Not all American economists are in agreement on the effects of that policy, nor are the hon. members who participated in the present debate and expressed disparate opinions. Each one sees the problem in his own light, doing his best to find a solution.
In fact, an American economist, Mr. John Kenneth Galbraith, formerly a member of the Kennedy administration, stated that whereas the freezing of prices and wages was good policy the surtax on imports could reverse the trend to lower tariffs which has prevailed over the past 30 years. Such is the opinion of one American economist.
In Chicago, Mr. Milton Freidman said that he was deeply disappointed by the decision to freeze prices and wages, and I quote:
Wages and prices are symptoms, not causes of inflation. So far, Mr. Nixon had done well with the economy, and in my view, he has taken a backward step.
Another scientist, Mr. Paul Samuelson, Nobel prize winner in economics, has approved the eight-point presidential program, except the reduction of budgetary expenditures.
Mr. Speaker, these are conflicting viewpoints, but they are still the views of equally prominent American economists. Solutions are being sought in the United States as well as in Canada; economists are being consulted south of the border just as they are consulted in Canada and
Employment Support Bill
they all express valid opinions. At least, they think they are valid and they advise the governments. And then, after the government has decided in favour of one of the proposals, the others start criticizing.
Now this is democracy, even with the best economists. Politicans are sometimes accused of having a tendency to criticize each other, perhaps even just for the heck of it, which is absolutely untrue, at least as far as I and other hon. members are concerned. May I say in passing, Mr. Speaker, that I do not believe that these people are doing a much better job than we are when they start criticizing each other.
It is a matter of knowing what orientation to choose to ensure a sound administration and enable the people to enjoy the fruit of their labour.
For my part, I still believe that climbing interest rates are the main cause of inflation and the resulting unemployment. We have often asked and suggested that the government take the steps required to reduce interest rates, and we feel that would help reduce the cost of production and place Canada in a more competitive situation internationally.
Mr. Speaker, after that measure was announced, the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau), in his explanation to the nation, stated, and rightly so, that the American surcharge of 10 per cent would considerably reduce the purchasing power of Canadians. I therefore thank him for having thus confirmed what we have said for a long time, namely that any tax results in lower consumer purchasing power. Whether an American or a Canadian tax is involved, when the consumer must foot the bill, it contributes to reduce the purchasing power. Whether it is a federal, provincial or municipal tax, it has for effect to reduce the consumer's purchasing power. He has then corroborated what we said and I sincerely thank him.
Mr. Speaker, this is why on March 15, 1971 I proposed a six months' hoist of the bill providing for a 3 per cent surcharge on personal income tax and corporate tax.
This is also why the Creditistes have suggested on several occasions the abolishment of the sales tax on building materials, a tax which greatly slows down the progress of construction and which contributes to increase unemployment in Canada. And this goes on.
Indeed, we note that the progress of construction has been slackening and that thousands of unemployed report themselves to construction sites to obtain a job. However, those sites are getting increasingly scarce.
If you ask the builders, they will say that the interest rate is too high, that the cost of money is too high, that they can no longer discharge their obligations and that they have to sell their houses at too high a price. That is why there is less construction being carried out.
In the construction field, the situation has grown worse from month to month, particularly in Quebec, and that is one of the reasons why the provincial government has adopted the decree concerning construction which imposes restrictions on the construction workers, when it has been proved that this sector needs, on the average,

September 8, 1971
Employment Support Bill
20,000	workers per year. Yet, more than 100,000 are looking for jobs in the various trades. Consequently there is a period of unemployment, in Canada as well as elsewhere, which will make the country poorer, because it is being deprived of the energy of a number of workers, and automatically it is the whole country that suffers.
Moreover, this situation leads to some rivalry between federal and Quebec manpower centres, and workers are not always the better for it. It is unfortunate to see that manpower centres in "la belle province" are set up to serve the population and the workers but the competition does not always help provide the services workers are entitled to expect. That is why we sometimes have trouble getting some contractors to welcome people we recommend upon request. Officials of Quebec manpower offices resent the fact that the recommendation comes from a member of Parliament. Things should not happen this way, but such is the situation in several cases.
As early as July 1970, long before the 10 per cent surtax was imposed by Americans, a newspaper indicated that this government's policy had driven the country in to an unemployment crisis. In Le Droit of Ottawa, on May 8, 1971, one could read the following:
Last night, Prime Minister Trudeau stated that unemployment constituted the most serious failure that his government had suffered during its three years in office.
The Prime Minister had been questioned during the televised program called "Format 60" on the CBC French network and he admitted that unemployment had followed, in part, the government's battle against inflation that he felt he had won.
Maybe we gained a little in the field of battle against inflation, but at the same time the problem of unemployment has been aggravated. The Prime Minister went on to say:
Our fight against inflation was a success, but it had a disruptive effect in terms of a deplorable increase in unemployment.
Those are the words of the hon. member for Belle-chasse, but he is repeating what the Prime Minister said. So I hope we will not be accused of resorting to small politics. We are merely verifying the effects of a policy over the Canadian economy.
On May 12, 1971, a certain newspaper had this to say:
At least 17,000 Montrealers have been laid off in 1970. This is based on figures compiled by the press and data released by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics on the employment situation in 1969-1970.
On the following day, a heading in the Montreal newspaper La Presse read as follows:
10,000 new jobs only last year.
So we can draw the following comparison: far from progressing we are receding.
In its May 18, 1971 issue La Presse said-quote:
Unemployment has a tendency to become chronic and to drag on. As a result, there will be in Quebec, by 1980, an estimated total increase of 670,000 workers, and if we want to lessen unemployment by half from now until then, we must create at least an average of 75,000 to 77,000 new jobs each year.
This is also the statement made by Quebec Labour Minister Cournoyer when he sketched the present labour
[Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse).l
situation in Quebec before the members of various south-shore social clubs assembled in Saint-Lambert.
Another politician, as reported in the newspaper Mont-real-Matin, January 19, 1971, said that we must create at least 65,000 jobs annually if we want to absorb the workers who will invade the labour market each year.
Finally, in the newspaper Le Devoir, on May 26, 1971, one could read the following:
Some textile workers blame the federal policy. Criticism of the federal government policy in the textile area was the opening topic yesterday, in Joliette, of the congress of the Canadian Federation of Textile Workers.
The director of services of the Federation, Mr. Lacaille, in his report to the delegates pointed out that the federal policy in matters of textiles would prove useless in the distant future as long as the government does not take the necessary steps to curb erosion of the Canadian market by the developing countries.
Mr. Speaker, here are the problems. The United States want to protect themselves against foreign products entering the country; Canada, for its part, through its organizations, has long been urging the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) to adopt protective measures in order to safeguard our textile industries and ensure work for our labour force.
At the very moment when the government was announcing such a policy, Mr. Lacaille recalled, such imports were resulting in nearly 1,600 dismissals in eight Quebec textile products manufacturing plants. And since then, Mr. Speaker, many people are aware of it, the Canadian textile industry, and especially that of the province of Quebec, has experienced difficult times as a result of regular and large imports.
That is one reason why the Chemeell Company Limited announced, a few months ago, the eventual closing down of its plant in Montmagny, in the constituency of Bellechasse which I represent. And if that plant really closes down, 400 workers at least will be laid off.
Here again, this is a result of the lack of foresight on the part of the government as regards international trade. On that, I am tempted to quote a Liberal senator, chairman of the Senate committee on poverty, senator Croll. I think he showed courage when he informed the government of the result of its policies in the following words:
Unemployment, like poverty, is not what it used to be and neither one nor the other will be tolerated in this country.
He went on:
The government chose one evil, high unemployment, to fight another one, inflation. Both have a certain value but at this time, that of unemployment is not only monetary but social, and is quite a blow at human dignity and hope.
As an example, the senator referred to a 40-year old family man owner of a house and of a car and having some obligations. All of a sudden, he is unemployed, laid off without any hope of getting another job soon. "Where can a 40-year-old man get a new job in our present society" asked the senator.
During the question period today, a member asked whether there would soon be an opportunity program for older people. That seemed perhaps a little amusing but we will have to take things seriously again and consider
September 8, 1971

the situation with respect to the 40-year old people who lose their jobs and are not always able to find new ones.
They are human beings who deserve to live and society should look after them right now.
Would you advise this man to apply for social assistance? Is he going to ask the senator? As far as I am concerned, I would hesitate to do it since the man is only forty and is still in good health. He is still able to serve his country. Should we advise the unemployed to request that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) give them retraining courses, or tell them to hope and wish that unemployment benefits can eventually be paid to them? Or that the government may ultimately become their boss and advise them to tighten their belts so the nightmare could disappear? Or should we tell them to be proud of the sacrifice they are making in the national interest, that they are true patriots, people whose self sacrifice helps others to find jobs and who tighten their belts and watch others work.
We should not allow the level of unemployment to increase.
Senator Croll has said.
There is uneasiness in the country and unemployment would not resolve it.
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to quote another liberal member because the government has been informed not only by opposition but also by cabinet members who took their role seriously and have moved in time. I am referring to the member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer), a former minister who left the present government because of its economic policy which is spreading poverty rather than prosperity.
This member, who is no longer a minister, was openly blaming the government for its economic policy. The member for Trinity in a debate in the House maintained that technically and financially, the government policy was an almost complete disaster and, morally, a complete failure.
Besides, the member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) who is seating with the cabinet members is not always congratulated by his colleagues. It is nevertheless he who has publicly declared that the government's current economic policy will create a barbarian and ferocious society. These are grave words. These statements were not made by us but by members elected under the Liberal banner in 1968, who are now disappointed with the economic policy of the government.
Later on, another member of the cabinet of the Prime Minister also resigned-and not the least, for he is an economist-because the government's social and economic policy is not aimed towards the achievement of a just society in Canada: I am speaking of the former Postmaster General and Minister of Communications (Mr Kierans).
The Minister of Trade, Commerce and Industry stated that the American surcharge would harm Canada, but that it would have done so even more if he and his colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) had not gone to the United States to explain to the A nericans all
Employment Support Bill
the harm that surcharge will cause Canada. Well I never!
I am convinced the Americans listened attentively to the Canadian ministers-of course! they are polite people-but they knew beforehand the effects of that policy; why else would they have adopted it? Of course, they adopted it to protect themselves. Even if we went to them and said that we are hurt they would not remove it today or tomorrow. If all the countries which export to the U.S. made representations similar to ours, do you think that they would change the American policy? I do not think so.
Answering questions put to him by the members of the parliamentary committee, in the United States, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers stated:
The 10 per cent surcharge on imports will not remain forever However, I would not hazard a guess as to the period of time it will remain in effect.
Hon. members know that newspapers indicated it might last only 90 days, but everybody knows that temporary measures sometimes become permanent and governments say that they are only temporary to assure slow acceptance by the population.
As an example, one must remember our own temporary taxes which have unfortunately become permanent in many cases. The main purpose of the American surcharge is to protect American industries and American workers as well. Under the present circumstances, Canada must adopt measures designed to promote the consumption of Canadian products, by ordering a discount on Canadian production affected by the American surcharge and on other new products.
I for one believe that this situation will linger on and that a good many industries will of necessity have to remodel their plants in order to manufacture other items, and under such circumstances, I would suggest to the government to apply the discount policy to those new products.
Therefore, we must adopt a policy likely to stimulate the consumption of Canadian products and this to increase productivity and create jobs in Canada.
A member said a moment ago that $80 million was a very small amount to solve the problem. I entirely agree with him, because we feel, considering the large number of manufacturers exporting to the United States that it does not take long to squeeze $80 million out of the people and that this amount will not be sufficient to replace the purchasing power which will cross over to the United States without the Canadian industries getting any benefit therefrom.
This is why I suggest that instead of subsidizing the industries, we should subsidize consumption. We would thus automatically protect not only the industry, but also the worker and trade which must rely on the marketing of our domestic goods.
One might tell me perhaps that the 10 per cent tax will not affect all Canadian products. In fact, as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) was saying yesterday night while taking part in the debate on the bill now before us, this measure would not apply to all agricultural products.

September 8, 1971
Employment Support Bill
The American administration has published a list of agricultural products which are exempted from the 10 per cent tax imposed on American imports since the 15 of August. In this list, where some one hundred products appear, one finds the following exemptions-we shall see how interesting this is-all fresh vegetables. But how many of these do we export to the United States? There is no problem in exempting something that we do not export. We import rather than export these, namely, tomatoes, lettuce, carrots, melons and potatoes. We export some potatoes, but not as many as we could have done if we had enjoyed more comprehension from our neighbouring country. All fresh and dried fruits, such as oranges, grapefruits, lemons, olives, dates, bananas, peaches, pears, apples and cherries, are not subject to the surtax, but we do not produce any, so there is no advantage for us.
I can understand why the Americans have exempted from the surtax the different groups of agricultural products that I have just mentioned, since they export more to Canada than they import from us and this exemption is therefore to their advantage and it has only one object which is not the protection of Canadian agriculture.
This list of products also includes live cattle and fowl, fresh eggs, in bulk or not, wheat and feed grains as well as seeds.
On the other hand, and this is interesting, the 10 per cent surtax will apply to the following agricultural products: carcases and cut meat, pasteurized milk, processed products like butter, cheese, ice cream, dairy products, cotton fibres, flour, cigarettes and, in general, all agricultural products not in their raw state and wich have been processed.
Discussions will have to take place afterwards in order to determine what processed products are. Experts will have to be consulted to ascertain if a certain product sold has been processed. It will be that silly.
So, certain Canadian agricultural products which previously could be exported to the United States will be affected by this 10 per cent surcharge and that will not help the Canadian industry and increase the net annual income of farm workers.
We also know that hog prices are now lower in the United States. Therefore, Canadians would not benefit from hog exports at this time. In my opinion, this 10 per cent tax will cause new problems to hog breeders who already experience very difficult conditions. In fact many of them are going bankrupt or are close to it precisely because with production costs rising they get less than what it costs them to produce. They are forced into deficit. That is why the minister received representations from producers who asked the government to take special measures in order to guarantee the people of the industry a fair share of the national revenue through higher prices for hog and lower ones for fertilizers and feed, a reduction I have often asked of the government.
This is also a production that would normally yield a great deal, at normal prices, to the producers concerned.

At the present time, this is causing them some problems. We must not abandon them. Indeed, this class of products should also benefit from the discount I mentioned a moment ago.
Another sector, the manufacturing industry, interests me greatly. It will be affected by the 10 per cent surtax imposed by the Americans: I am referring to the furniture industry. Several of these plants are established in my riding and they export to the United States part of their production. They would be quite happy to increase their sales on the domestic market which would be possible if this discount policy was applied to the purchase of Canadian furniture.
The same problem also applies to footwear manufacturers in the Quebec area, where many such factories are now considerably affected because of the government's failure to protect them against unduly large imports of goods from abroad, forcing them to reduce their production and lay off labour, increasing employment.
Last week, representations were addressed to me in this regard and I promised those people my co-operation in suggesting that the government take appropriate steps to protect their industries.
In order to replace exports lost as a result of the United States surtax, would it not also be advisable to accelerate restructuring and streamlining of the furniture industry, as I mentioned a while ago, in order to manufacture precisely furniture likely to please Canadians and which, in view of the discount the government might order, would enable Canadian consumers to purchase domestic products. This would in no way harm the Americans, since we would not be giving them a slap in the face, by automatically retaliating and introducing measures as touch as their 10 per cent surtax. We could remain good friends, while at the same time being free in Canada to cover our houses with asphalt, sheet-metal, or any other material we chose, as this is a purely internal matter.
Therefore, an $80 million fund meant indirectly to subsidize our southern neighbours might temporarily shield our industries from disaster. However, I myself am of the opinion that we should, first and foremost, protect the interests of the workers and the consumers.
Why should the government not give it a serious trial by ordering a 10 to 15 per cent price discount to encourage the consumption of Canadian products, and this would indirectly contribute to supporting employment? This would really mean employment support. It would be realistic and could produce tangible results.
A measure of that nature would be protecting the worker, the industry and the consumers in Canada. However, for this discount to really do what it would be meant to do and regulate supply and demand, I suggest that this compensated discount to the consumer, whose benefits will reach the consumer, be financed through new lines of credit from the Bank of Canada, aimed at serving the public weal and distributed according to common sense and the economic concepts of a brillant Scottish engineer by the name of Major Douglas, who is the father of Social Credit. This is the kind of policy
September 8, 1971

Canada needs if we want to work seriously toward solving our economic problems and setting up a just society for everybody, big and small.
As for me, I prefer by far Major Douglas's philosophy to Carl Marx's economic philosophy because I believe in the first one, I believe in its possible application and I believe it is likely to make Canadians a happy people able to live from the exploitation of our natural resources.
On the other hand, I know that to apply the economic principles of Social Credit would require a lot of courage from the government since it would necessarily have to leave the beaten path so as to put into operation a mechanism which would permit distributing the huge production of modern inventions, of science and of research carried out through generations. The consequence of this research has been to increasingly eliminate purely man-made work in view of producing the huge volume of manufactured facilities required to meet humanity's needs.
Indeed the decision to act will have to be taken some day, for the situation is becoming increasingly serious. The number of graduate workers and others is getting larger from year to year without them being able to find work on the labour market.
That is why the government should seriously consider the suggestions we are making very objectively in order to help it cope with the problems facing us at this time.
That discount policy would not be new altogether, since it has been in operation during the 1939-45 war for reasons obviously different from those of today, but which were nevertheless valid and which warranted the establishment of such a policy on the part of the government.
We already have had that during the war, with good results. Why should the same measure not bring about the same results in peace time?
The government is sometimes inclined to tell the opposition that we criticize a lot and that we seldom come up with suggestions for practical solutions. The government does not listen attentively to our suggestions and it keeps on believing that we do not put forward any constructive suggestions.
On the other hand, I realize that it is not completely free in several cases, for it is influenced by big business whose interests are not always compatible with the best interests of the population.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce warned us in his speech yesterday that the administration of Bill C-262 might prove extremely difficult and that he is not too sure about the results.
Why then did he say that when we make suggestions the government demands guaranteed results while when the government launches a policy, it is okay to give it a whirl? It can be put to the test even though the results are not guaranteed.
I am convinced that this policy will be hard to implement because no new measures can actually be applied 24171-64
Employment Support Bill
without causing some difficulties here and there. What is important in all this, is to aim with accuracy. I, for one, know that if this bill is adopted and applied with all the tools and instruments provided to the government, then it would allow the government to pursue its policy of industrial centralization, and that, to the detriment of rural communities where small industries have been set up and where they have rendered invaluable services to the people.
I warn the government: if they attempt to acquire one more tool to centralize industries in three, four or five large centres in each province, I shall oppose them in every possible way for I feel, I am convinced, that this would be contrary to the real interests of rural communities and small urban centres.


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, there are times in the life of a nation when an issue or an economic situation clearly transcends party differences; when a situation arises which demands of all of us an approach which de-emphasizes mere argumentation and emphasizes public good and need. This, without any doubt at all, is such an occasion.
The action taken by the United States may have a profound effect on the economies of every single nation in this world and may certainly shape our economic decisions for tomorrow. I think all of us were encouraged a few days ago when the government announced its intention to act swiftly and decisively to provide assistance to the workers of Canada.
We were gratified with the response of the leaders of Her Majesty's opposition parties when they stated they wanted to expedite the consideration of any emergency measures. That is the kind of action which encourages public support for Parliament. It has been heartening to hear the useful comments which have been made by some opposition speakers. It has been equally disheartening to note the attempts by a minority of opposition members to exploit the nation's current economic problem, and it is the nation's problem, not the problem of the government, the Liberal, Conservative, NDP or Social Credit parties. It is everyone's problem and if we are frank we will admit it. It is not the problem of the government alone. It is a problem of every party and the people without party. It is difficult to believe, for example, speaking of one of those minority voices-that loud and strident voice from Calgary North-that any spokesman for the official opposition would have the courage to suggest that this government has failed to promote Canadian-American unity. This is incredible.
In 1957 that party advanced the view that we should reduce U.S. dependency. One of the main clarion calls of his party was that we should transfer 25 per cent of our trade, as one of the first steps of a new Conservative government, to the United Kingdom. We all remember those days of oratory in 1957. Not only did that government not effect such a trade transfer to the United Kingdom of 25 per cent-

September 8, 1971
Employment Support Bill


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It was 15 per cent.


Raymond J. Perrault: -you m_ay claim 15_per cent but you did not even get 5 per cent, so there was a notable failure even with the reduced figure. Canadian-U.S. relations plummeted to an abysmal record low and we suffered the worst of two possible worlds. We alienated both the United Kingdom and the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Raymond J. Perrault: Yet, certain members of the official opposition are taking up that theme of U.S. alienation, but I wonder if that argument is being advanced seriously. The government has acted quickly to meet a difficult situation. It has acted quickly because of many practical considerations which have been mentioned adequately in this debate by members on both sides of the House.
One of the considerations is simply that "business is business". By that I mean every effort has to be made now to assist Canadian businessmen to maintain their U.S. trade connections. If during a three-month period trading connections are lost which have been built over many, many years, at an incredible cost, if brand name indentification is lost, if distribution and outlets are lost or disrupted, we could then have problems which might last well beyond three months, six months or even a ten-year period. All of us know this and that is one of the reasons we have acted quickly. We have acted quickly, not with any kind of mistaken assumption that this program is going to be the end-all and be-all or the final word on the subject. The program represents a first step to help the workers and industries in Canada through this difficult period.
Those in business are aware of the fact that our trade connections in the United States have in many cases been developed over a period of many years and that they represent an investment almost beyond calculation. The loss of outlets, distribution patterns and name identification could be substantial and serious unless we act now to provide supplementary job security support for the workers of this country.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) advanced the view yesterday that efforts should be made to diversify Canada's trade. This theme was picked up by the leader of the New Democratic Party, and both made very interesting speeches. I think hon. members enjoyed listening to them. However, one wonders that any responsible leaders in Canada can at this time give voice to this kind of criticism. Various efforts have been made, particularly under the leadership of the present Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), in respect of Canada's trade diversification. Trade diversification has been one of the major initiatives of this government.
Does the Leader of the Opposition suggest seriously that Canadian activity in the Pacific realm and in Asia has been dedicated merely to cultural exchange and archeological studies? As a matter of fact and record, there never has been a greater effort exerted by a Canadian government to develop diversified markets. This, too, is not fair criticism of this government.
A few weeks ago I was a member of the Canadian government mission to China.


Robert Jardine McCleave: How is your ping pong?


Raymond J. Perrault: When a nation lives by export it must live with the economic vagaries of other nations. It is impossible, for example, to control totally the inflation in this country despite the statements of certain opposition spokesmen. We have heard the New Democratic Party in this House ask what is wrong with this government that the people have to pay so many more dollars for groceries when they go to the store. Of course, they are paying more for their groceries. But, the Leader of the New Democratic Party told the council of the New Democratic Party in Ontario a few months ago that they should be frank with themselves, that it is impossible for Canada to control inflation if it is not controlled in the United States. Unfortunately and regrettably we have not had that same degree of disarming candor in the halls of this House of Commons. Yet, we need more candor in this House. Yesterday he spoke as though we were captains of our fate and could take complete charge of our economy any time we wanted to, and that we could simultaneously establish economic independence, full employment and stable prices.
What has been his key proposal to meet the problem? I have a great respect for many of his ideas but here is what we find. I am quoting from the Globe and Mail of Saturday, September 4, 1971:
David Lewis, leader of the New Democratic Party, has called for a 10 per cent federal tax on all Canadian natural resources being taken out of the country.
Then, the article quotes the leader of the NDP as saying:
We need to put a 10 per cent tax on our natural resources which the United States hungers for and needs.
In the Gazette which has been quoted freely in this House today, he is reported as saying:
Canada ought to consider imposing a 10 per cent export tax on natural resources leaving the country-on the oil and gas and minerals which the U.S. is very hungry for.
This is a policy of economic suicide. It would be utter, abysmal disaster for thousands of working people in Canada's resource industry. If any New Democratic members in this House believe that workers' incomes in this country must be stabilized and maintained they will disown that policy immediately. This would be a suicidal policy for thousands of people. They would lose their jobs. What are the facts of life? We are not living in an island nation south of Pago Pago in the South Pacific. We are living in Canada which is in fierce competition with many other nations for the mineral and resource markets of the world. A few years ago people said that the only place nickel could be obtained in the world was in Canada. Ninety per cent of all the nickel in the world was produced in Canada. We only have 50 per cent of the world market now. World prices prevail. If we introduced the proposal advanced by the Leader of the New Democratic Party we could immediately price ourselves out of certain U.S. markets and put thousands of people out of work.
As was pointed out earlier in this House, many of these resource prices are for delivery in the United States and
24171-64'
Employment Support Bill
the producer would have to absorb them. These NDP policies have been advanced as though there were no other competition in the world and that we have total control over the economy. It is as though there were no world prices, no competition, and that Australia does not exist, that Malaysia does not exist, and that we are free in a tight, right little Canada. This is not true. It was stated, and I believe with a great deal of candor, by the Minister of Industry for the NDP for the province of Manitoba, Leonard Evans, on September 4 that so far as Ottawa is concerned he thinks both Ottawa and the provinces should seriously look at the possibility of providing subsidies to offset the surcharge. This is not superheated eloquence; it is a frank statement by a minister of industry who wants to see the economy of his province survive and grow. There is a difference between the statement he made in Manitoba and some of the statements made here. He has responsibility for government. He knows the facts of life. He knows he has to deliver the goods for the people of his province. He has the responsibility of looking after a provincial budget and so he favours the policy advanced here in the federal House. Yet his national leader said this is an abortion of a policy. He talked about a miscarriage of justice. One might wonder what kind of a debate we really are in. It still remains to be seen whether or not his party will support the program.
No one advances this proposal for the expenditure of $80 million as one which will be the salvation of Canada. Other policies and measures may be necessary. Undoubtedly, other actions will be needed. Together with every other nation we are confronted with a challenge to our ability, our energy, our initiative, our dedication and indeed our love for our country. The challenge is to Canadians in all parties. It may be tempting to take political potshots at the government. That is fair game. Sure, it is. I have been in opposition, too. It may be tempting to transfer blame to the government. But it is a question of inviting the members of the opposition and all Canadians to be members at this particular time of a Canadian construction crew and not members of a Canadian wrecking gang. In this place, we have a responsibility to the citizens of Canada to take this and other measures which will help the working people of this country maintain their family income. That process will be assisted by responsible and fair comment in this House of Commons.


Mr. H. W. Danforlh (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, the importance of this measure, I believe, has been emphasized by the fact that so many government members have deigned to take part in this debate. In just a few short hours, we have witnessed the participation of three cabinet ministers and two parliamentary secretaries. After listening very seriously, as all hon. members have, to the speeches given by government members, because we must elicit government policy from such speeches, one can have some doubt concerning actually what this measure means for Canada and Canadians. So far as the ministers are concerned, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), who introduced this measure,

September 8, 1971
Employment Support Bill
expressed some doubt about it being the ultimate solution to the very serious problems facing Canada. If I were in the position of the two cabinet ministers who entered the debate and was uncex-tain concerning actually what the problem was, and whether or not these measures would be effective, I am certain I would have attempted to make the same general non-committal speech.
I listened to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, the hon. member for York North (Mr. Danson). This man has been noted since his entry in this House for a sense of humour. It must have been very repugnant to him, coming from an industrial centre in Ontario-the very industrial centre of Ontario-to have had to deliver an entire speech which was an apology for the government program and which was an attempt to establish the ground work for blaming the action of another government for the economic morass in which we find ourselves today. I believe it was absolutely ridiculous for him to suggest that all was well in the economy of Canada in the industrial sector and in the labour sector before Mr. Nixon made his statement.
The fact that he spoke on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) indicated something that every man on the street predicted, namely, that the government would endeavour to use this action as an apology or excuse for the trouble in which Canadians find themselves today. He was followed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Perrault), and if we had any doubts previously, Mr. Speaker, they were dispelled then because he took the same theme.
It was interesting to note that both of these gentlemen, when castigating the actions of our neighbour and using them as an excuse for our problems, admonished the other members of this House not to approach the bill on the basis of casting the blame somewhere else, and urged the House to make progress. We always view these programs introduced by the government in such tremendous haste, programs which are not actions but reactions, with some suspicion because from bitter experience during the short span of this parliament we have learned that when the government makes mistakes it is not just a matter of a mistake but of a series of mistakes. And they are not just minor mistakes; they are major ones. Every major mistake the government makes adversely affects the nation's economy and the livelihood of ordinary Canadians. This is why we are concerned.
Members of the government are talking about $80 million provided through this measure. To individuals and to families, $80 million may seem a tremendous amount of money but let us look at it in perspective compared with other government programs. Here, we are talking about $80 million to safeguard thousands of jobs and major Canadian industries. Mr. Speaker, we spent $67 million to give 120,000 unemployed youths something to do for two summer months. Now, the government allocates only $80 million to protect the economic heart of the nation, to protect major industries, especially in the two largest provinces. We had no hesitation in spending $200 million on an exposition to entertain the nations of the
world, but this $80 million now represents only $8 million per province to protect provincial industry. That is only half the sum of money we spent to embellish an aircraft carrier so that we could sell it for dockage fees.
There does not seem to be any sense of proportion in the government's approach to this major problem. Each province is going to look at this measure very carefully. The provinces are vitally concerned about their industries. Many provinces will accept this program at face value. My own province of Ontario will accept the measure, but I can assure you that it will be with tongue in cheek. I venture to presume that right now the Premier of Ontario and his cabinet are busy studying the possibility of introducing other measures to supplement this one which they know cannot cope with a problem of this magnitude.
If it requires money to solve this problem, perhaps there could be a simple way of creating an absolute solution. The hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott), one of my colleagues, told me of an idea which I thought had a great deal of merit, and which he said had been given to him by his constituents. Why isn't consideration being given by the government to paying this surcharge for the various industries affected? We do not know how much money may be involved. It could be a tremendous sum, but we do know that $80 million is not going to pay the bill. The government itself has admitted that it will not pay the bill.
When we consider the millions of dollars necessary for the administration of the new government bureau that will be set up to carry out this program, the millions of dollars that will be paid out in welfare to people who will be out of work and the tremendous sums of money that will be needed for retraining and shifting from area to area our needy people who want jobs, we know that we are not talking about just $80 million. We are talking about countless millions of dollars. So, why not consider ways and means of halting and blunting the impact of such a surcharge before it gets out of hand?
The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) put his finger on the crux of the issue so far as agriculture is concerned when earlier today he asked what will happen to the millions and millions of dollars worth of agricultural products directly affected by the surcharge. It is true that many agricultural commodities are not affected by it, but there are many commodities that are affected simply by those provisions of this bill which deal with processors. Any primary agricultural product that is touched in any way becomes a processed product, and there are many commodities that I do not believe the government has considered in this context. I would like to give two examples. One was brought to my attention by the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean) and a number of my other maritime colleagues. This product is not of primary importance to Canada, but this is a good illustration of what can happen. I am referring to the $3 million worth of blueberries that we export to the United States which are now subject to the surcharge, under the regulations since they are a processed commodity because they are frozen. The berries remain in their original form but are frozen, and therefore are classified as processed

September 8, 1971

foods. In light of what has already happened, it will not be possible for this segment of the primary agricultural industry to be compensated in any way. The processors, being good businessmen and realizing that they could not compete without some action to counter the 10 per cent surcharge, reduced the price at which they bought the blueberries from the primary producers. The primary producers are already paying the price of the surtax. How is the government going to compensate them?
The government has spoken of the need to be careful that fruit processors, utilizing government grants, do not place themselves in a position to under-bid competition to the full extent of those grants. That is one form of protection. But what about protection for the primary producers who are already receiving less money for their products? They can be hit in two ways. The processors stand to gain from the relief afforded to them, but I doubt very much that they will pass this relief back to the primary producers.
Another example has been brought to my attention by my colleague the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) and it deals with fisheries. This 10 per cent is going to be taken out of the pockets of the fishermen. In my own area, Mr. Speaker, we have a greenhouse industry which sends literally hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of cut flowers to the United States every month through the Port of Detroit. This is a multi-million dollar industry. One operator told me the surtax would cut immediately into his profit to the extent of $20,000. Under the bill as presently drafted, these operators do not qualify. They are primary producers but just because these flowers have been cut, they are classified as a processed commodity and not exempt in any way from the American surcharge. They have to pay the 10 per cent and with the increase in the value of the Canadian dollar of 8 per cent, they are faced with an 18 per cent tariff. The industry cannot stand this loss in revenue, Mr. Speaker. There is not much profit any more, so what are we going to tell these people?
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), in dealing with the whole subject of agriculture,-and those engaged in the industry must look to him for guidance- did not suggest a solution in his speech. He spoke in terms that did not mean anything. He said, "perhaps"; he said, "maybe", and, "if"; "We will look into the matter"; "We will study the matter"; "We will listen to your representations"; "We are going to deal with it on a commodity by commodity basis". He said that anything not covered under this bill would be looked at under the Stabilization Act. We have learned from bitter experience, Mr. Speaker, that it takes so long to do something like this that we are out of business before the government makes a decision. It is not a matter of a day or a week or a month. This government proposed to give $100 million to farmers in the west, but they have not got it and they will not get it until it is expedient to bolster the sagging Liberal party in the west. They will get it then, but the farmers in our area cannot wait for political expediency. Measures like this could put them out of
Employment Support Bill
business. So we see, Mr. Speaker, that this program is not a solution.
We found out something else as agriculturalists and small businessmen, Mr. Speaker. We found out that whenever there is an economic crisis, as far as this government is concerned we are too far down on the list of those who are important. If we are a small business or a small agricultural industry, we cannot get the ear of the government. If the president of one of the automobile companies calls one of the ministers there is an emergency cabinet meeting that day or the next day. If a small businessman or a small agricultural industry is in difficulty, it must first make representations to the minister concerned and if it can get an audience within 90 days it is indeed fortunate. To have the problem placed on the agenda of this cabinet, which must deal with many problems, means such a long wait that it is almost hopeless and futile to make such an attempt.
This government asks us to go along with them, to help them out, to support them in this crusade to save Canada s businesses and the jobs of the people of this nation. They say, "Let's do something to keep people from being unemployed". When we have 600,000 people already who cannot find jobs they say, "Help us; support us". All of a sudden they have become aware of the facts of life. The reason this government is placing such importance on this particular measure, and the reason we have these cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries engaging in a debate earnestly and progressively, one after another, is that all of a sudden this is not a problem that can be hidden behind doors or piled up for future consideration. This is not a problem they can crawl out from under by setting up a royal commission to report on it or, as they solved so many problems, by instituting a task force to look into it and to report some two years later. No, Mr. Speaker, because of its very nature this problem hit the press immediately. Everybody was involved. All Canadians were involved. Nations were involved, so this government had to bring it out in the open and, for the first time in this Parliament, take action in a way that the populace of Canada could see exactly what they were doing.
We are not surprised that they have been delinquent. We are not surprised that they would bring in a measure like this. We are surprised, however, that for the first time they would indicate that a measure brought in by this government might not be a cure-all. It is something new to have a minister admit that perhaps they have not got all the answers. They are now under the scrutiny of the people of Canada who can see what they are doing, who can sense that they are fumbling in the dark and do not know the answers. For the first time, this government is being forced to do something on behalf of the people. They have had ample opportunity to demonstrate their concern for the industry of this nation. For months and months, negotiations have been carried on by the European Common Market countries. This market is vital to Canada, but what has been our contribution? We have been lurking around in the alcoves and hallways hoping we could find out what was going on. We are not in the inner circle. We have no guarantees that our trade will

September 8, 1971
Employment Support Bill
be maintained. We are asked to consider that perhaps some of our commodities will retain the status quo in the market, but there is no guarantee. Australia and New Zealand were in the inner circle and found out what their prospects for trade were; they did something about it. They got concessions from the European Common Market. We asked the government what concessions we would get but we did not get an answer because there are no answers.
Then, we have the floating dollar and its terrible effect on some of the industries of this nation. The only solution that has been offered has been the parliamentary secretary saying, "Well, it is not hurting all industries; some industries that thought they were going to be hurt are not being hurt". Now, we have the surtax. Mr. Speaker, I have lived within 40 miles of the boundary of the United States all my life. I have done business, as have my friends and neighbours, with perhaps more Americans than Canadians. You do not get concessions from the Americans by going with hat in hand and saying, "You owe it to us". When dealing with Americans you deal with them as businessmen talking to businessmen.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harold Warren Danforth: This government talks about freer trade. The Minister of Agriculture said that we are embarked on a policy of freer trade. Mr. Speaker, as the official opposition we have tried and tried to convince this government that the United States is not going to look after the welfare of our industry and our agriculture. That is our responsibility. When imports were coming in here that were destroying our vital industries, we went to the United States and said, "Look fellows, this is not cricket." The United States in that instance did exactly as it has done this time. We should learn that this is the way nations do business. When they are hurt they impose a surtax and do something about the situation. What happened when we were hurt by the importation of cheap American corn? The American producers knew they were in the wrong. Did we clamp a surtax on their importations into Canada? Mr. Speaker, we went down there and in return for their permission to put on a temporary surtax lasting 90 days, we traded off five concessions under GATT. We did that to get a 90-day reprieve. When the government of Canada acts like that, how can we expect to obtain anything by begging?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They look worried.


Harold Warren Danforth: There is another thing with which the primary producers of this country are really getting fed up. It is that this government has not only deliberately embarked on a policy of putting people out of work to curb inflation, but that it has also embarked on a policy that allows and encourages the importation of foodstuffs similar to those that are produced in Canada. The government has encouraged the importation of those foodstuffs from other nations in a deliberate attempt to force
prices down, because food prices are one of the major items reflected directly in the cost of living index. It was the government's considered opinion that by bringing cheap food into Canada, an action which crippled many segments of Canadian agriculture, they could solve the problem of high living costs. How they expect to resurrect this industry after irreparable damage has been done, I have no idea. That is just another example of the government reacting to a situation, and it bothers me, Mr. Speaker. After all, this government went to the people with its agricultural policies and suggested that not only did it know the problems, but it knew the answers as well. Those in this country making a living from agriculture soon learned that the government's policies were nothing but political expediency.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Pragmatism.


Harold Warren Danforth: And if the farming industry of this nation has to be sacrificed, has to be destroyed, in order to keep this group in power, that will be done without any reluctance whatsoever. They talk about Mr. Nixon's policy; yet since this group in power took office, more viable economic units of agriculture have gone into bankruptcy than ever before in the history of our country.


An hon. Member:: That's Liberal generosity.


Harold Warren Danforth: These are not just small family farms that I am talking about; these are economic units in which hundreds of thousands of dollars have been invested. Many are run by businessmen who, if given a fair economic climate, could make a livelihood. Yet under this administration there is no chance of such an economic climate.
We are told that here we have a new measure which is designed to help the Canadian people. It contains no solution for this problem. It is another measure of political expendiency, and this government is trying, with the taxpayers' money, to buy itself out of a difficulty. That is what we have here, Mr. Speaker. This is no well thought out measure. The government is merely making an attempt once more to buy itself out of a difficulty, in the same way as it used the $100 million paid to western farmers. That money was used, not to sell grain, not to develop markets, not to establish research, but to buy the government out of the difficulties of the western dilemma. That is the sort of thing we have before us, and it is not good enough. This will not do. We hope, as a party, that when this bill goes to committee we can bring in the necessary amendments that will enable agriculture, small businesses and other segments of our economy, the fisheries, the forestry people and allied industries-as well as those that are hurt desperately, to qualify for assistance under the regulations. We hope we can enlarge the bill by amendment so that those industries may qualify for assistance, even under regulations established by this government. We have learned from bitter experience that when we pass a measure through the House, that is not the end of it. The government brings in regulations, and those regulations are a source of trouble. Many times there is difficulty with the administration or interpretation of regulations.

September 8, 1971

I think we must do something to offset the action of the United States. In conclusion, may I make two points. First, this government cannot use Mr. Nixon as a "fall guy" for problems in the Canadian economy. They were here before and they are still here. If the surcharge were removed tomorrow, there would still be economic difficulties in Canada. Using Mr. Nixon as a "fall guy" will not wash.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is right.


Harold Warren Danforth: Second, it is time that this government stopped reacting with "patchwork" policies. It is high time that this government embarked on policies to help the Canadian people rather than to maintain this group in office. When such policies are implemented we shall have a better Canada.
Employment Support Bill


Mr. Ian Wahn (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, this has been an interesting debate and I am grateful to have the opportunity of participating in it this evening, even if only for a few seconds. Perhaps I might take this occasion to answer the remarks made by the last speaker, the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth), who suggested that only ministers and parliamentary secretaries on this side of the House are interested in this matter. My participation will indicate that all backbenchers on this side of the House are interested. I hope to continue my remarks tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. It being six o'clock this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Thursday, September 9, 1971