1971-06-23

THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: 1 have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:



GOVERNMENT HOUSE, OTTAWA

[Stage Direction]
23 June 1971
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Roland A. Ritchie, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 23rd day of June, at 5.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
X have the honour to be.
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Esmond Butler
Secretary to the Governor General.
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the fact that according to the Standing Orders and the notice on today's Order Paper there is to be a recorded vote at 5.45 today, which comes first-the vote to be taken by order of this House or the invitation which Your Honour has just read to us?


Mr. MacEachen:: If I may comment on the point raised by the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, the House will, of course, proceed to the vote. The messenger from the other place will probably arrive at the appropriate moment just as the vote is concluded. I believe that is the sequence of events which will take place.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Eighth report of Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, in the two official languages-Mr. Les-sard (LaSalle).
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings. ]


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to announce a new
service and a change in the rate structure for international letter mail that will give Canadians a better international mail service, a service appropriate to the seventies.
Extensive testing of surface letter mail has indicated that it has been taking from 20 to 40 days to reach destinations in Europe, and still longer to the Orient. This time interval is unsatisfactory. Commencing July 1, 1971, Canada will become the first nation in the world to adopt the Universal All-Up Service for international mail. This service provides that all letters up to eight ounces in weight, addressed to any foreign country (except the U.S.A.) will now be carried exclusively by air.
This service now takes from three to five days.
Prior to deciding that the Post Office should implement this improved service, we had to make a difficult decision that concerned the cost to the customer of such a service. It was imperative that any new rate structure be simple and be applied on a uniform basis on all letter class mail sent from Canada.
This meant that existing preferential surface letter mail rates to certain countries would be abolished. Canadians mailing letters internationally would be charged the same rates for the new All-Up Service, irrespective of destination.
Under the new structure, the Universal All-Up rates are as follows: (a) up to one ounce-15 cents; (b) over one ounce to two ounces-30 cents; (c) over two ounces to four ounces-40 cents; (d) over four ounces to eight ounces-90 cents. The previous air mail rates were 15 cents each half ounce to Europe and South America, and 25 cents a half ounce to Asia. Thus, a letter airmailed to Europe weighing three ounces previously cost 90 cents. Under the new service it will cost 40 cents-a reduction of over 50 per cent.
On international letters being carried by the new Universal All-Up Service, the customer must still affix a blue airmail sticker as before, even though all letters up to eight ounces are carried by air. This will ensure that these letters will be carried by air right through to their destination.

Canadian airlines, along with the airlines of other nations, have helped to make this new all-up service possible by participating in the planning and costing of the program. In addition, the Universal Postal Union has endorsed the forward step the Canada Post Office has taken.
A new category of international mail, called small packets, will also be introduced on July 1, 1971. This category will provide a more economical service for

June 23, 1971
Post Office
items weighing up to one pound. Packets containing small goods, gramophone records, recorded tapes, automatic data processing cards and similar material will be carried at a lower rate than parcel post. Many countries now have this class of mail.
Twenty-three years ago Canada was the first country to introduce domestic all-up service for first-class mail. Today I have announced another first, another milestone for Canadian postal history, one of which we should be justly proud. It is another step in our unceasing efforts to improve and update Canadian postal service.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the custom of the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote), since he resumed responsibility for this office he has been frank in the presentation of information. This afternoon too he has displayed his usual courtesy in providing members of the opposition with an advance copy of his announcement. We appreciate this gesture.
In the announcement the minister indicated that the service Canadians have enjoyed in respect of international mail during the past two years or so is not appropriate in the 1970s. He commented that it has required from 20 to 40 days for mail originating in Canada to reach European destinations, and even longer to the Orient. I am sure hon. members will agree that the special tests referred to by the Postmaster General were not required to demonstrate this point. Our mail has been full of complaints about long delays in international postal service for mail originating in Canada. It is interesting to note that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), during the press conference which just took place in Toronto, indicated that some of the mishaps that have taken place are the result of the long delays in the postal service to which the Postmaster General has referred.
The Universal Postal Union has given its blessing to this improvement in services for the 1970's. I presume other countries will be making similar announcements to that made by the Postmaster General today.
I wish the minister had left out the second last paragraph of his announcement. It reads very well to that point, and without that reference I am sure it would have received the endorsement of all hon. members. The paragraph to which I refer states:
Twenty-three years ago Canada was the first country to introduce domestic all-up service for first-class mail.
That was true more than 20 years ago, but even if Canada was the first to introduce domestic all-up mail service I presume the Postmaster General will agree that our efficiency in this regard has been slipping.
The Postmaster General has reacted in a positive way in the announcement he made today. Contrary to the maladministration of the past two or three years under his predecessor responsible for the administration of this department, I trust this will not be a case of beginning well and then sliding back in terms of efficiency. I hope it means the beginning of a better postal service which will continue to improve as the days and years go by. I hope the improvement he has indicated will be adopted by all
[Mr. Cot6 (Longueuil) .1
nations in this day and age when it has become so necessary to have increased efficiency and reliable communication.


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, we in the New Democratic Party welcome the minister's announcement of this new mail service. I can confirm the statement by the minister that it often takes 20 to 40 days for mail originating in Canada to reach Great Britain and other parts of Europe. I can also confirm that it takes a considerable and perhaps equal amount of time to receive a letter in Canada originating in Great Britain. This fact is disturbing to a number of my constituents. Therefore, although the minister's statement did not mention this matter, I hope the service which Canada is initiating will be reciprocated by other countries. This is a point on which I think the minister could give some leadership in order to encourage reciprocity of service. I believe it would be helpful.
Two years ago, on behalf of my constituents I instituted an inquiry into this matter and received a report from the minister's predecessor which read in part as follows:
With respect to delay to surface mail exchanged between Canada and Great Britain, this has been due, principally, to deterioration of transatlantic shipping.
Therefore, since it is unlikely that the fast packet service will improve, I believe it is all the more desirable that the minister has proceeded in the way he has in respect of a fiat rate airmail service to Great Britain.
I have a couple of other concerns which I believe should be mentioned. I hope this improvement in international service will not be at the expense of local service. I feel there may be some subsidy here that will come out of the mail service within Canada which has been anything but improved over the past three years, as other speakers have mentioned in Post Office debates since I have been a member of the House. Hopefully, it will be possible now to send a letter to Europe overnight. If we just could get to the point where we could send a letter to Toronto overnight I think we would be in good shape. I should like to tell the minister that daily papers from the west coast of Canada to which I subscribe take over a week to reach Ottawa. Sometimes as many as six daily papers arrive on my desk on the same day even though they were mailed on separate days.
I also wish to refer to a matter of greater urgency perhaps than the international service. I believe that the Postmaster General should investigate and solve the tremendous imbalance in respect of losses occurring because of the preponderance of mail charges based on the tremendous movement of United States magazines coming into Canada. This also has been mentioned during every debate. I urge the minister to turn his great talents toward solving this problem.
We congratulate the minister for his initiative in respect of this announcement, but we urge him to dedicate himself to the bringing about of a better local service with the accent on the Post Office as a service rather than a business. We ask him to work toward the elimination of the United States-Canada magazine imbalance
June 23, 1971

which is extremely costly to the service and to abandon once and for all the out-and-out favoured treatment accorded to Time, Life and Reader's Digest.


Mr. Romuald Rodrigue (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to witness the establishment of an international All-Up Service which is an innovation, for the simple reason that the postal service will improve significantly in the future.
I am also convinced that this improvement will be welcomed by all Canadians.
In view of the complete reorganization of the external air mail service now taking place, it was normal that postal rates be reviewed. I think that unfirmity in this respect is an improvement and that the public will more readily understand the proposed rate structure.
The minister's statement is welcomed and I avail myself of the opportunity of urging him to continue improving the postal service and particularly domestic mail in Canada.



ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to ask for the concurrence of hon. members in the third report of the Special Committee on Environmental Pollution. My seconder is the hon. member for York West. Two days ago I tabled-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member will give the Chair the opportunity to put the motion I will do so at this point. Mr. Anderson, seconded by Mr. Givens, moves that the third report of the Special Committee on Environmental Pollution, presented to the House on June 21, 1971, be concurred in. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is a very important issue. We are glad that the hon. member has been able to bring it up today, but because we are involved in the budget debate and we think that many of the facts which otherwise might be dealt with at great length can be brought up in the budget debate I have had some preliminary discussions and I understand that there is a willingness to agree that there should be one speaker from each party with a limit of ten minutes on each speech on this issue. I am making this proposal and I hope it will be acceptable.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it acceptable?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.
Environmental Pollution


David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to ask for the concurrence of the House in the third report of our committee which was presented to the House on Monday of this week. Since I am the only speaker from this side of the House I do so also on behalf of the hon. member for York West (Mr. Givens) and the other members of the committee.
Perhaps the best way to present the report is to quickly outline to hon. members what is in the report and then they can make up their own minds on how they wish to treat this issue. First, may I emphasize that we were acting under the general order of reference of this House of October 13, 1970, which provided that we were to look into the problems of pollution in the waters, soil and air of Canada and the plans of the federal government in relation thereto. Therefore we needed no specific reference to investigate the problems in southwestern Canada and, in seeking concurrence in the third report today, we fully expect to make further reports in the future on other matters of concern.
We started our inquiry by attempting to travel to the west coast, but for reasons that are perhaps irrelevant at this stage we were unable to go to the west coast. Instead, we brought a number of witnesses to Ottawa. They came from Washington, D.C., Seattle, Vancouver, Victoria, Ottawa and also Edmonton. On the whole I think they are a very fine group of people and they gave us a good understanding of the problems involved. However, we regret deeply that we were unable to speak to or hear from the officers of the corporation which is set up to move oil in the Alaska pipeline and between Alaska and the lower 48 states by tanker. I refer, of course, to the officers of the Alyeska Corporation, a consortium of seven of the world's largest companies which are engaged in this endeavour. Twice we tried to arrange a date for such evidence to be presented but twice, because of discussions which the corporation was having with the United States Coastguard, they expressed regret at being unable to come. We trust that in the future we will perhaps be able to hear from them, but in view of the fact that we are recessing shortly we thought it best to make an interim report.
The committee's efforts were devoted to finding out the risks involved in this particular area, that is, the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the Strait of Georgia and the channels between the two straits. This is the terminal in the U.S. Pacific northwest of the oil tanker route from Alaska. Hon. members heard about the traffic patterns that there are at present in that area. They heard evidence on the confined nature of the waters, and I might add at this point that they are far more confined than the area where the Arrow met with disaster in Chedabucto Bay or where the Torrey Canyon met with disaster off the English southwest coast. The committee heard evidence on the obstructions to navigation such as fog which occurs at least 60 per cent of the time in the month of August, and the problem of smoke from slash burning in the forests of British Columbia and Washington was looked into. Finally, we looked at the currents and tides in this

June 23, 1971
Environmental Pollution
area and we heard evidence on this which indicated to us once more that we were dealing not with an open body of water with relatively easy navigation but with an extremely confined and difficult body of water in which the currents run at up to seven knots.
We then heard evidence from ships' captains, pilots, practical men experienced in the problems of moving ships in those waters, and we found out that they indeed realize that if this tanker route is established a spill of perhaps massive size is inevitable in the waters.
We learned from oceanographers, both from the University of Washington and the University of British Columbia, that the general trend of the currents in the area is northward. We therefore concluded in our report that quite likely the damage done by any massive oil spill even on the American side of the international boundary line, would affect the Canadian side more than the American side.
Perhaps at this stage the best thing I could do would be to read to hon. members, with their permission, the resolution paragraph, the conclusion paragraph in our report, which I think will indicate to them the punch of the report and why we think it is important to have unanimous consent from all members of the House.
On the basis of evidence and testimony heard, the Committee is unanimous in its conclusions that if the proposed tanker route is established: (1) serious oil spills in Canadian waters and on Canadian shores are inevitable; and (2) these spills will result in substantial damage to Canadians. Further, your Committee notes that such oil shipments will offer no compensating benefit to Canadians in this area or elsewhere. Consequently, your Committee concludes that the proposed tanker route is detrimental to the Canadian national interest, and unanimously recommends that it be vigorously opposed by the Canadian government.
I wish to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that the report of the committee was unanimous. All parties contributed to the discussions. All parties were present at varying times when evidence was heard. It was not only members from the west coast who were present. Members from other parts of Canada attended, and we thank them for coming along to take part in the consideration of what is very much a southwestern British Columbia problem.
I personally feel that this is in no way an anti-American type of resolution. I wish to dispel that thought at the outset. I personally feel that a country is obliged to prevent activities within its jurisdiction from damaging persons and property in another territory, another country, by polluting the environment. This is a limitation on sovereignty which the Canadian government has accepted and a limitation on sovereignty which I suggest other governments should accept. I repeat that we do not feel this is anti-American, because we think the American shores will be damaged, perhaps to a similar extent as our own, when this route is established.
We know that the American people themselves are split on this issue. We know that some politicians in Washington are in favour of the route, and many are against. In these circumstances we feel it is not a question
of our opposing something that is in the American interest but of Canadians making known their views on an issue on which the Americans are searching for information on which to make the best decision possible.
I might stress in closing that this is not the type of question where the Canadian people, the Canadian government and Parliament should suggest, "Well, what can we do? We will simply ask for compensation afterwards." The damage done may well be irrevocable in the area in question. The flushing action of the tides is not great. We want to make sure that damage will not occur. Therefore we came forward with the recommendations that I read a moment ago.
There are a few other recommendations, or I should say suggestions, that the government should consider. We say it should consider the advisability of certain things, and these are listed on page 5 of the committee report. They deal basically with research.
Time after time we found our committee was hampered in its consideration of this subject by lack of research, lack of knowledge on the effect of oil spilled at sea on marine organisms, lack of knowledge on oceanographic problems, and certainly lack of knowledge on alternative methods of transport, wherever they may be located, and lack of knowledge on the bacterial and micro-organic assistance that can be provided.
We have felt no hesitation in bringing this report in at this time, despite the fact that we had not heard all the witnesses that we wanted to hear. We feel the report is an honest and accurate reflection of the situation, and I urge hon. members in all parties to give it their unanimous support.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, a look at the next item in my name under routine proceedings will indicate that I am heartily in favour of this motion and will ask the House to vote concurrence in this very interesting and valuable report. I think this is one of these indications wherein the House, the people in it like the hon. member, are far ahead of the executive in taking note of and planning action upon an important matter.
I commend the hon. member, the chairman of this committee. He has given great leadership in the whole field of environmental studies, and precautionary work in reference thereto. It has appalled me how his efforts have been frustrated by those who should have supported them and advanced his causes. This is a matter, as the hon. member says, that transcends the regions of this country and the party groupings, the divisions that normally divide politicians one from the other.
For a long, long time my colleagues and I, and members from other parties, have endeavoured to impress upon the government the importance of taking vigorous initiative, of speaking clearly and distinctly to the friendly people at the U.S. ministerial level who appreciate candour and who like to be told things before it is too late.
On February 18, 1971, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), the golden-voiced House leader of
(Mr. Anderson.]
June 23, 1971

our party, moved a motion under Standing Order 43 which was ruled out of order. The mellifluous member from Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) moved another motion on March 5. It, regrettably, was not passed. We got back to our senior Solon, the hon. member for Peace River, on March 12. Again he made an effort that was unsuccessful. And in my usual humble presentation on April 2, asking the government to communicate to the government of the United States its opposition to the TAPS route, and asking that the Secretary General of the United Nations be advised also, I was as successful as the great ones of my party in this effort. And on April 22 the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) sought to do the same. In other words the rank and file members of this House, the chairman of the committee, members of this party and of the party to our left have been concerned about this problem.
I do hope that the adoption of this report will spur and stimulate the government to give greater attention to this matter. I was appalled the other day when I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) if on June 10 this matter would be discussed between the officials in Washington and the Canadian ministerial group, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), and the Prime Minister said, "Oh, that was wrong; that was discussed on June 3. That wasn't being discussed today at all." Then we discovered on June 11 it actually was discussed, but it did not make the press release and the communique. And on June 12, if I remember the dates precisely, we had an addendum and learned that inferentially and informally the matter did come up. Mr. Speaker, it should be much more than a casual, informal matter. It is a matter of tremendous urgency.
The report of the committee, which I agree did a splendid job but which could have done even better if there had been greater research and greater co-operation, as the chairman pointed out, gives many indications of the appalling possibilities of an ecolocatastrophe on our west coast in these narrow waters. These possibilities are absolutely frightening. Some figures have been produced. Even the frequency of earthquakes in Alaska is something that of itself should cause us to be terribly concerned. The U.S. National Earthquakes Information Centre has reported that Alaska had 68 recorded quakes in 1970. So there is tremendous danger. A study of future tanker traffic in Puget Sound by the Honeywell Corporation of Minneapolis has predicted two to four tanker collisions in this area in the next ten years. Furthermore, two expert testimonies at the recent Anchorage-Washing-ton meetings have pointed out that one collision by a supertanker would turn that area of the west coast into a dead sea.
Sometimes people who are concerned about environmental protection are accused of being alarmists. But the dangers here are so great, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot be too concerned and should express our concern day in and day out. It is up to the government to indicate to
Environmental Pollution
Washington that this is not a matter which comes up after the main meetings are over; it is not a matter for an addendum; it is not an informal little affair that a few environmentalists are all worked up about; it is not a matter that only British Columbia is concerned about; it is a matter of great importance. British Columbia should have been at that meeting of June 10 and the matter should have got to the forefront of the agenda. I hope it will get to the forefront of the agenda, Mr. Speaker.
I support the hon. member in his motion and ask that the House give speedy accord to it. I am not going to speak for my full ten minutes, Mr. Speaker. I understand the leader of my party is to make a speech on the budget, and if this country ever needed good advice on economics it needs it now. So I am going to make what is a supreme sacrifice for a practical politician and give up about four minutes of my time.
This is one initiative of which this House can be very proud, Mr. Speaker. I commend the chairman of the committee and I am sure that members from all parts of this House will join in approval of his efforts and in support of his motion. I quite agree it is not a matter on which there is united opinion in the United States. I know that Senator Edmund Muskie, one of the wise men from the east-and that prevails in the United States too-has come out and expressed his concern. Let this be another indication that this House of Commons cares and may the government take note of that and begin to care a little more too.


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker,
let me begin where the self-sacrificing member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) left off. One of the important reasons for supporting this motion at this time is the fact that many of us feel that it will strengthen the position of some of our friends in the United States. There are people there who are as concerned about the ecological effects of an oil tanker route down Canada's Pacific coast and into the northern waters of the State of Washington as anybody in this country. This underlines the importance of the central and indeed the only recommendation of the report which is to the effect that the committee concludes that the proposed tanker route is detrimental to the national interest and unanimously recommends that it be vigorously opposed by the Canadian government. At no time in its deliberations did the committee lose sight of the fact that in expressing concern for the Canadian interest it was also expressing the very real interest of the United States as well. I hope the position expressed by this report and by its adoption by the House will be taken in that light by the United States and will serve to modify the position taken by certain interests in that country.
The report has had a rather difficult period of entry into this House, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, it might be fair to say that the chairman of the Special Committee on Environmental Pollution has suffered prolonged birth pains in its production. Nevertheless, as one member who served on the committee and assisted in drafting the report I

June 23, 1971
Environmental Pollution
was happy today to hear him make one of his interesting speeches in the House for a change. His speech may not have been quite as interesting as some he made in other places outside the House, particularly, if I may be so bold, the speech he made some time ago in British Columbia. I am happy to note that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) who is Acting Prime Minister today is smiling and apparently enjoying the procedure. Indeed, as he indicated yesterday, he has agreed to support early action for adoption by the House of the position indicated in the report.
Perhaps I should remind hon. members that this is by no means the first effort which has been made in the House to get an unanimous expression of opinion in opposition to the establishment of this tanker route. My colleague, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding), on one and perhaps two or three occasions has sought the unanimous consent of the House to have a motion passed to this end.
It is not only in the Environmental Pollution Committee that hon. members have had an opportunity to become aware of the serious implications to the welfare of our Pacific coast that such a tanker route would involve. Those of us who served on the Transport and Communications Committee recently which considered the bill on pilotage were made doubly aware of just how serious the dangers are and how urgent it is that we make every possible effort within Parliament and in representations to other governments to ensure that mammoth disasters to the resources of our sea and seacoast are prevented.
I am not going to cover the ground that has been covered by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson) and the hon. member for Hillsborough except to say that I agree with them. However, I should like to suggest that, while we are considering this matter which has caused concern and consternation to some of us because of the delays and apparent lack of interest in some areas, it might be appropriate at this time to clear the order paper of the whole business. I should therefore like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard)-if unanimous consent is required for such an amendment I would ask for it-the following motion:
That the second report of the Special Committee on Environmental Pollution, presented to the House on Friday, March 12, 1971, be also concurred in and that item No. 63 on the orders of the day under government orders he discharged.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member will not suggest that this motion is in order. This cannot be an amendment. It is an entirely separate motion and we cannot have two motions before the House at the same time. The hon. member may seize an opportunity, perhaps under Standing Order 43, to present this motion but he cannot do it by way of the motion now before the House.


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I take this opportunity to congratulate

the member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson) for the excellent work he has done as chairman of the Special Committee on Environmental Pollution of which I was an honoured member. I eagerly second the motion.
I feel that this special committee is most important in providing Canadians with the best possible quality of air, water and environment, as all Canadians have the right to expect.
We did hear worthy and most interesting witnesses, but I would like to make a plea for better co-ordination between government departments so that, if this committee meets again, it can make good use of the experience of experts and .engineers from different departments to ensure environmental quality.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: I assume that the motion which stands in the name of the hon. member for Hillsborough will now be withdrawn.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Macquarrie) withdrawn.



PROPOSED FLOODING OF SKAGIT RIVER VALLEY-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion under Standing Order 43. I feel it is urgent that this House state its unanimous opposition to the proposed flooding of the Skagit River valley and that this view be formally recorded and transmitted to the United States Government as an indication of Canada's total opposition to the proposed flooding. The three opposition House leaders have indicated that they agree to this motion being passed-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please, the hbn. member knows that he cannot argue his case. He can only indicate what his motion is. I hope he will be able to present his motion without argument.


Randolph Harding: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I conclude by saying that there is agreement that the motion will be passed without debate. I urge the government to accept this motion which will enable us to present a united front in opposition to this proposed flooding of Canadian territory. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch):
That this House express its unanimous opposition to the proposed flooding of the Skagit River Valley in British Columbia
June 23, 1971

and that this decision of the House of Commons be transmitted to the United States Government through official channels.
Questions



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

['(a) (b) Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation approved a loan in December, 1968, through the Quebec Housing Corporation, to assist in the financing of the St-Magloire Home in the Municipal County of Bellechasse, in the amount of $260,000.']
Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Kootenay West. Is there unanimous agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity and the motion cannot be put.
* *



Thomas Speakman Barnett: for leave to introduce Bill C-251, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act (disqualification).


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce the said bill?


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to confirm and clarify the undoubted intent of Parliament that no action taken under the authority of the Unemployment Insurance Act in respect of an insured person qualifying for benefit should in any way be affected by such a person becoming, continuing to be or refraining from becoming a member of an organized association of workers.
The need for greater certainty, as proposed in my bill which will add a new subclause to section 61, arises from a recent decision by an unemployment insurance officer to disqualify one or more persons, otherwise qualified for benefit, on the grounds that a regulation made by the commission restricts the application of section 61. If there is any way of doing so, I would like to get unanimous consent for the speedy passage of this bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


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

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for Externa) Affairs) moved: the first reading of Bill S-14 (from the Senate), respecting the construction of an international highway bridge between Fort Frances, Ontario and International Falls, Minnesota.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)


AIR CANADA-LOAN FROM BRITISH CONSORTIUM
Mr. Caouette: 1.	Has the government been Informed that Air Canada has borrowed the sum of $30.5 million from a British consortium of six banks?
2.	Has the government guaranteed this loan?
3.	Is the government aware of steps taken by Air Canada with Canadian financial organizations, including the Bank of Canada, to obtain such a loan and, if so, for what reason did Air Canada not succeed in borrowing from the Bank of Canada.
4.	If Air Canada has not taken such steps, what are the reasons?


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secreiary fo Minister of Transport):: 
AIR CANADA-FINANCIAL SITUATION
Mr. Fortin: 1.	(a) How much money did Air Canada borrow in England recently (b) what was the rate of interest?
2.	Under what order in council was this loan approved and guaranteed by the government?
3. (a) What are Air Canada's current loans and when are they due (b) what are the rates of interest (c) what are the names of the lenders?
4.	What steps are being taken to improve Air Canada's financial situation?


Gérard Duquet: June 23, 1971
Questions
craft under order from Lockheed Western Export Company.
2.	No Air Canada engines have as yet been delivered and Governor-in-Council authority respecting guarantee, provision for which is contained in Bill C-186, will be sought, as and when required, upon enactment of that legislation.
3.		Principal
Maturity Interest Amount		
As at December 31, 1970 Date	Rate	(000's)
	%	$
Demand notes -	3.5	27,000Six month revolving notes -	4.6-6.1	143,371Long term notes and debentures 1971	5.5	33,3421972	5.1	29,3401973	3.9-7.4	22,6801977	5.2	4,0201979	5.6-6.4	67,0001980	6.8-7.2	90,0001981	4.3-7.6	46,2831985	5.9	17,4971987	5.2	67,069Government of Canada	169,783	Canadian National Railways	377,819	547,6024. Air Canada is presently placing	greater	emphasis
than ever before to devising and implementing more sophisticated marketing techniques and strategy at the same time as costs in all areas are being scrutinized and strictly controlled.


LOW COST HOUSING IN RURAL AREAS OF CANADA
Mr. Mazankowski: Are there any programs presently available lor the establishment of low-cost housing in rural areas of Canada and, if not, is the government contemplating the adoption of such programs in the near future, and particularly in those areas within a fifty mile radius of large urban centres?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: In so far as the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is concerned: The Provinces of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick sponsor co-operative housing projects with financing under Section 35A of the National Housing Act. Under these programs, loans are provided at preferred interest rates to groups of individuals who wish to build their own low-cost homes in areas adjacent to major urban centres. The Province of Nova Scotia in particular has made use of this program, with some 3,200 housing units having been built since 1953.
In agreement with each of the three Prairie Provinces, there is a program providing for the financing of low-cost housing, under Section 35A of the National Housing Act, for families of low income resident in remote

northern areas of these Provinces. Most of these units are being sold to enfranchised Indians and Metis.
Other programs under Section 35A of the National Housing Act, and programs under other sections of the National Housing Act, are available for low-cost housing in rural areas of Canada, but are not designed exclusively for such purposes.
In so far as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is concerned: Under Special Area Agreements, DREE is helping to fund low-cost housing and trailer park relocation in Sept-Iles, Quebec; mobile homes in The Pas, Manitoba; and a mobile home park in Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan. Other DREE programs help to reduce the cost of public services in many rural areas and therefore make low-cost housing more practicable.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-CHARTER OF SHIPS FOR NEWFOUNDLAND SERVICE
Mr. Carter: 1.	What was the total number of ships chartered by CN for their Newfoundland service during 1969-70?
2.	What were the names of the owners and the rates charged?


Gérard Duquet: The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. 1969, 15; 1970, 17.
2.	The owners of the chartered vessels are as follows: Lake Shipping Ltd.; D. Frampton & Co. Ltd.; Winsor Trading Co. Ltd.; Nfld. Marine Services Ltd.; Avalon Trader Co.; J. Petite & Sons; Puddister Trading Co.; Puddister & Bennett Shipping Co.; Sarah Shipping Co.; Thomas Winsor & Sons; Lake & Lake Ltd.; H. W. C. Gillett Ltd.; Benhill Shipping Ltd.; North Atlantic Bulk Cargoes Ltd.; Puddister Trading Co. Ltd.; J. B. Foote & Sons; Atlantic Steam Navigation Serv.; Capt. A. Bouchard; Stephenville Shipping Ltd.; Euclide Bouchard; Edward Dawe Ltd.
The rates vary in accordance with the charter and are negotiated in so far as wage increases, etc. are concerned. In the circumstances, it is considered not to be in the Company's best interest to disclose the information.


MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
Mr. Mather: Are taxis subject to the Canada Auto Safety Standards and, if not, for what reason?


Gérard Duquet: Yes.


AIR CANADA PASSES
Mr. Guay (St. Boniface): 1.	What was the policy of Air Canada on domestic and overseas air passes for their employees up to and including the year 1970?
June 23, 1971

2.	(a) What is the present policy and which of the employee's relatives are entitled to passes (b) how many per year?
3.	How many domestic passes is an employee allowed for (a) himself (b) his wife and children (c) other family members or relatives per year?
4.	How many overseas passes is an employee allowed for (a) himself (b) his wife and children (c) other relatives per year (i) after 1 year service (ii) after 3 or 5 years service (iii) after 10 years or more service?


Gérard Duquet: The Management of Air Canada
advises as follows: Employees and their dependents are entitled to free transportation depending upon the employee's years of service. The administration of this policy is considered to be a matter of internal management.


PUBLIC WORKS-GREENBELT FARM CONTRACT NO. 9C-07017
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Were tenders called for contract 9C-07017, November 18, 1969, Construction of building No. 213, 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?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Yes,
(a)	Eight tenders were received and opened on November 13, 1969. (b) Highest tender, $137,800; lowest tender, $114,400. (c) Lowest tender, (d) Public advertisement- Newspapers: Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa and Hull; Heavy Construction News, Toronto; Daily Commercial News, Toronto; Journal Constructo, Ville Jacques-Cartier.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Admiral Engineering & Construction Ltd.
4.	(a) (i) $2,522. LeBlanc & Martin, Architects. '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 in-
Questions
surance for subcontractors is the sole responsibility of the general contractor.
Cost Breakdown by Trades Construction of Building No. 213, Greenbelt Farm-
Contract 9C-07017
Permits, insurance, bonds	$ 1,200
Excavation and backfill	10,000
Concrete, forms, reinforcing steel and
finish	22,000
Carpentry, insulation, caulking	19,800
Metal siding and roofing (Ideal Roofing) 4,000 Millwork and glazing	4,500
Painting	4,000
Finishing Hardware	700
Paving	900
Miscellaneous fabricated metals	4,500
Stalls and stanchions	2,500
Operating table and light
(Arnold Maxo)	3,500
Rubber Mats	1,700
Feed tanks, auger system, bam cleaner (Central Welders and Blacksmiths)
(Beatty)	6,000
Mechanical (Andy's Mechanical)	10,600
Electric (Bisson Electric)	18,500


PUBLIC WORKS-ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY, TUNNEY'S PASTURE
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Were tenders called for contract 9C-01421, May 5, 1969, Revisions to mechanical equipment, Environmental Laboratory, 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?


Arthur Laing: 1. Yes,
(a)	Nine tenders were received and opened on April 1, 1969. (b) Highest tender, $111,111; lowest tender, $73,320. (c) Lowest tender, (d) Public advertisement-Newspapers: Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa and Hull; Heavy Construction News, Toronto; Daily Commercial News & Building Record, Toronto; Journal Constructo, Ville Jacques-Cartier.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Canadian International Comstock Co. Ltd.
4.	(a) (i) None, (ii) $2,310.-Keith Associates Limited, Consulting Engineers.

June 23, 1971
Questions
(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
Revisions to Mechanical Equipment, Environmental Laboratory, Tunney's Pasture Contract 9C-01421
Mechanical (Canadian International Co. Ltd.)	Comstock
Coils	$7,800
Controls	9,000
Insulation	1,700
Drinking Fountain	3,800
Piping and Insulation of Heating	20,980
Refrig. No-Frost Unit and Compressor	8,500
Sheet Metal Duct	9,000
Refrigerant Piping Electrical (Canadian International	6,150
Comstock Co. Ltd.)	4,890
Fans and Motors	1,500


PUBLIC WORKS-GREENBELT FARM-CONTRACT NO. 8C-09954
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Were tenders called for contract 8C-09954, January 13, 1969, Construction of Buildings 44B, 44C, 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)	Three tenders were received and opened on December 19, 1968. (b) Highest tender, $488,400; lowest tender- $423,800. (c) Lowest tender, (d) Public advertisement-[DOT] Newspapers: Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa and Hull; Heavy Construction News, Toronto; Daily Commercial News & Building Record, Toronto; Journal Constructo, Ville Jacques-Cartier.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Admiral Engineering & Construction Ltd.
[Mr. Laing.l
4.	(a) (i) and (ii) $10,777.-Brais, Frigon, Hanley, Brett and 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 Buildings 44B and 44C, Greenbelt Farm, Contract 8C-09954
Permits, Insurance and Bonds Excavation and Backfill Concrete, forms, finish and reinforcing Carpentry and Insulation Precast concrete Asphalt paving and curbs Metal siding and roofing (Ideal Roofing/ Vic Metals)
Miscellaneous Metals and lockers Millwork
Caulking and Weatherstripping Finishing Hardware (W. A. Rankin Ltd.) Painting (Cinkant)
Feed Boxes

Feed Storage Bins (Central Welders and Blacksmith)
Weigh Scale
Milk Tanks and Wash Units Air Compressor
Conveying System (De Laval Co. Ltd.) Mechanical (Andys' Mechanical Ltd.) Electrical (J. C. Robinson & Son Ltd.) Allowances-Liquid Feed System
3,500
3,600
10,000
13.000
46.000
27.000
20.000


PUBLIC WORKS-GREENBELT FARM CONTRACT NO. 8C-09915
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Were tenders called for contract 8C-09915, November 5, 1968 Construction of Building No. 8, 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?
June 23, 1971


Arthur Laing: 1. Yes,
(a)	Six tenders were received and opened on October 31, 1968.	(b) Highest tender, $221,000.; lowest tender,
$163,450. (c) Lowest tender, (d) Public advertisement- Newspapers: Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa and Hull; Heavy Construction News, Toronto; Daily Commercial News, Toronto.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Admiral Engineering & Construction Ltd.
4.	(a) (i) and (ii) $4,135.-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. 8, Greenbelt Farm-
Contract 8C-09915
Excavation and Backfill	$ 6,000
Concrete, reinforcing, forms	16,000
Carpentry and Insulation	45,000
Metal Siding and Roofing (Ideal Roofing)	8,500
Miscellaneous Metals	7,000
Animal Hardware and Exerciser	38,000
Roll-up Doors	2,000
Asphalt Paving	3'ooo
Painting	3>50o
Finishing Hardware (Rankin's Hardware) 1,300 Weigh Scale	2,150
Conveying System (De Laval Co. Ltd.)	6'ot)0
Mechanical (Andy's Mechanical Ltd.)	10,000
Electrical (R. E. Ferguson Ltd.)	15,000


PUBLIC WORKS-RIDEAU FALLS LABORATORY CONTRACT NO. CR-67-2766
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Were tenders called for contract CR-67-2766, November 1, 1967, Sanitary sewer connection, Rideau Falls Laboratory, NRC, Sussex Drive 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?
Questions
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 October 17, 1967. (b) Highest tender, $39,900.; lowest tender, $29,500. (c) Lowest tender, (d) Public advertisement- Newspapers: Ottawa and Hull.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	W. B. Walsh Limited.
4.	(a) (i) None, (ii) $300.-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
Sanitary Sewer Connection, Rideau Falls Laboratory, NRC, Sussex Drive,-Contract-CR-67-2766
Mechanical:
Pipe fittings and	valves	$7,000
Pump and units	8,500
Labour	6,500
Electrical	2,000
Excavation and Finished Product:
Outside Services	4,500
Drilling	400
Sump Pits and Finished	Concrete	600


PUBLIC WORKS-CENTRAL EXPERIMENTAL FARM CONTRACT NO. CR-67-2767
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Were tenders called for contract CR-67-2767, September 22, 1967, Renovations to Plant Research Institute greenhouses, 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 (1) 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?

June 23, 1971
Questions


Arthur Laing: 1. No,
(a) Not applicable; (b) Not applicable; (c) Not applicable; (d) Not applicable.
2.	Due to the nature of the work only one firm in Canada was in a position to provide replacement parts and special components required to carry out renovations to the Greenhouses.
3.	Lord & Burnham Co. Ltd.-Contract amount $123,577.67 (Contract award approved by Treasury Board).
4.	(a) (i) $1,250. 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 Renovations to Plant Research Institute, Greenhouses, Central Experimental Farm Contract-CR-67-2767
Lord & Burnham Co. Limited	$14,679.70
F. G. Bowie & Sons Ltd.,
Electrical Contractors	98,427.30
Honeywell Controls Ltd.,
Electrical Contractors	2,724.00
Levesque Bros.
Painting Contractors	4,500.00
Standard Plumbing and Heating	3,000.00


PUBLIC WORKS-CENTRAL ORDNANCE DEPOT, PLOUFFE PARK-CONTRACT NO. CR-67-2749
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Were tenders called for contract CR-67-2749, September 13, 1967, Replacement of roof, Central Ordnance Depot, 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) 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 September 5, 1967. (b) Highest tender, $73,986; lowest tender,
$67,500. (c) Lowest tender, (d) Public advertisement -Newspapers: Ottawa and Hull.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Heather & Little Limited.
4.	(a) (i) $2,875-John Lunz (Roofing Consultant),
(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 subdivision 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 Replacement of roof, Central Ordnance Depot, Plouffe Park Contract CR-67-2749 Administration	$5,000
Roofing	52,000
Sheet Metal	10,500


PUBLIC WORKS-DATA CENTRE-CONTRACT NO. CR-67-2732
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Were tenders called for contract CR-67-2732, August 30, 1967, Additions to air conditioning equipment and power to computers, Data Centre 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) Seven tenders were received and opened on August 22, 1967. (b) Highest tender-$51,500; lowest tender- $32,300. (c) Lowest tender, (d) Public advertisement- Newspapers: Ottawa and Hull.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	T. P. Crawford Ltd.
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

June 23, 1971

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 Air Conditioning Equipment and Power to Computers, Data Centre,
Tunney's Pasture-Contract CR-67-2732
Ductwork and Equipment	$17,150
Electrical	6,100
Air Conditioning	5,400
Cutting and Patching,	Painting, etc.	2,800
Controls	850


FOOD SUPPLIES FOR BORDEN-CAPE TORMENTINE FERRY SERVICE
Mr. MacLean: 1.	What organization is responsible for the provision of meals for passengers travelling on the Borden-Cape Tormentine Ferry Service (a) on the ships (b) at the terminals?
2.	Who is responsible for the purchasing of food supplies for these services?
3.	Are tenders called for the supply of food?
4.	Is any preference given to local suppliers of milk, vegetables, etc.?
5.	Are instant mashed potatoes served on these car ferries and, if so, where are they manufactured?
6.	Are Prince Edward Island potatoes available in the restaurants on these car ferries?


Gérard Duquet: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows:
1 and 2. (a) Canadian National (b) A & W Drive-Ins (Fundy) Limited.
3.	Yes.
4.	Open orders are placed with suppliers on P.E.I. and supplies are ordered direct by the Chief Stewards on each vessel using price lists submitted by each firm.
5.	Yes. They are manufactured by McCain Foods Ltd. of Florenceville, N.B., the only firm manufacturing this commodity in the Maritimes.
6.	No. Because of the limitations of storage space, the varying numbers of persons using the catering facilities and the short duration of the trip it is more economical to use foods that require a minimum of storage space and handling. However, P.E.I. potatoes are used in providing meals for the crews.
Questions


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES ACT-APPROVED APPLICATIONS
Mr. McGrath: Since the inception of the Regional Development Incentives Act (a) by province, how many approved applications were made and accepted (b) by province, in how many locations were approved aplpications made and accepted, and which locations received more than one approved application (c) how many approved applications were made and accepted for new plants (i) the provincial sub-totals (ii) the total for Canada (d) what was the estimated capital cost for these new plants and what was the estimated value of the grants paid for these new plants (i) the provincial sub-totals (ii) the total for Canada (e) how many approved applications were for modernization and/or expansion of existing facilities (i) the provincial sub-totals (ii) the total for Canada (f) what was the estimated capital cost for the modernizations and/or expansion of existing facilities and what was the estimated value of grants paid for this modernization and/or expansion (i) the provincial sub-totals (ii) the total for Canada?


Mr. Marlin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: To March 31, 1971: (a) Newfoundland, 17; Prince Edward Island, 15; Nova Scotia, 51; New Brunswick, 49; Quebec, 190; Ontario, 34; Manitoba, 72; Saskatchewan, 25; Alberta, 27; British Columbia, 11. (b) Newfoundland, 13

Stephen-ville, St. John's; Prince Edward Island, 9-Charlottetown, Summerside, Montague, Souris; Nova Scotia, 34- Oxford, Halifax, Dartmouth, Truro, Amherst, Sydney, Springhill; New Brunswick, 25-Moncton, Grand Falls, Saint John, Fredericton, Caraquet, Florenceville; Quebec, 99-Shawinigan, Quebec, L'lslet, Trois-Rivieres, Louise-ville, Mont-Joli, Lauzon, Coaticook, Sherbrooke, Granby, Drummondville, Waterloo, St-Romuald, Montmagny, Donnacona, Magog, St-Marc-des-Carrieres, Lac Megantic, Cap-de-la-Madeleine, Beauport, Berthierville, Becancour, Thetford Mines, St-Joseph-de-Beauce, Warwick, St-Henri-de-Levis, St-Ephrem-de-Beauce, Sept-Iles, Victo-riaville, St-Raymond, Plessisville, Carleton, Montreal, Rougemont, St-Laurent, St-Hubert. Ontario, 23-Blind River, Sault Ste. Marie, Hearst, Massey, Hoyle Twp., North Bay, Sudbury, Renfrew, Pembroke; Manitoba, 23- Selkirk, Winnipeg, St. Boniface, Souris, Gimli, Dauphin, St. James, Killarney; Saskatchewan, 9-Swift Current, Moose Jaw, Regina, Saskatoon; Alberta 13-Lethbridge, Medicine Hat, Brooks, Slave Lake; British Columbia, 10 -Trail.
(c) and (d)
No. Accepted Capital Cost Incentive
Nfld.	7	$(000's) 1,398	$(000's) 666P.E.I.	7	1,848	619N.S.	18	8,605	3,386N.B.	27	14,721	8,584Que.	97	174,780	42,813Ont.	23	79,945	13,496Man.	31	19,563	5,724Sask.	15	13,115	3,897Alta.	19	107,778	17,015B.C.	5	1,190	373Total	Canada	249	$422,943	$96,573
June 23, 1971
Questions
(e) and (f)
No. Accepted	Capital Cost $(000's)	Incentive $(000's)Nfld.	10	2,376	744P.E.I.	8	1,444	566N.S.	33	104,961	18,195N.B.	22	11,440	3,297Que.	93	65,868	12,129Ont.	11	1,915	416Man.	41	7,831	1,824Sask.	10	5,219	1,123Alta.	8	1,764	344B.C.	6	789	183Total	Canada	242	$203,607	$38,821



Mr. McGrath: Since the inception of the Regional Development Incentives Act (a) how many approved applications were made (i) for the provincial sub-totals (ii) the total for Canada (b) by establishment size (using total persons employed), how many approved applications were made (i) the provincial sub-totals (ii) the total for Canada?


Abram Ernest Epp: Offers made to March 31, 1971:
(i) Newfoundland	28	
Prince Edward Island	17	
Nova Scotia	63	
New Brunswick	76	
Quebec	281	
Ontario	50	
Manitoba	101	
Saskatchewan	28	
Alberta	35	
British Columbia	16	
(ii) Total Canada	695	
	Employment Range	
	0-100	101-over
(i) Newfoundland	24	4
Prince Edward Island	17	
Nova Scotia	60	3New Brunswick	67	9Quebec	237	44Ontario	42	8Manitoba	92	9Saskatchewan	24	4Alberta	30	5British Columbia	16	(ii) Total Canada	609	86


PUBLIC SERVICE-EMPLOYMENT OF MR. ROD BRYDEN
Mr. Burton: 1. Has Mr. Rod Bryden been employed in the office of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration at any time since July 1, 1968 and, if so (a) when did he commence employment (b) when was this employment terminated (c) what post did he hold (d) what was his salary (e) what advisory group, special
study groups or other special activities was he involved with during his employment?
2.	Since July 1, 1968, has he held any other post in the Public Service of Canada and, if so (a) what post did he hold (b) what were the dates of employment (c) what was his salary?
3.	Is he now employed in the Public Service of Canada and, if so (a) what post does he hold (b) when did he commence such employment (c) what is his salary?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Canadian Wheat Board and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion as follows:
1.	(a) Mr. Bryden was employed by the Government commencing September 1, 1968. (b) March 31, 1971. (c), (d) and (e)-(i) Research Assistant (part-time), four months employment in 1968 at an annual salary rate of $5,000.
(ii)	Special Research Assistant, commencing April 1, 1969, at an annual salary rate of $14,500.
(iii)	Organization of Grains Group-under contract till termination date above at a per diem rate ranging from $110 to $150.
2.	No.
3.	No, but he is performing consulting services for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. As consultant on major special projects, beginning April 1, 1971, he is paid a fee of $150 per day of service.


SUBSIDIZED AIR SERVICE TO THE FAR NORTH
Mr. Yewchuk: Does the government intend to set up a subsidized air service to the far North for passenger and transport purposes?


Gérard Duquet: No, the government has no plans at this time to establish subsidized air services in the North. The Department of Transport and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development spend considerable sums annually on the construction and maintenance of aviation facilities in the North. The Department of Transport is currently undertaking a major study of air facilities and services in the Arctic to determine when and where improvements should be effected.


DEPARTMENT OF SECRETARY OF STATE-PERSONEL PERFORMING DUTIES RELATING TO &quot;OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH&quot; PROGRAM, ETC.
Mr. MacDonald (Egmonl): 1.	What are the names and home towns of individuals not previously directly in the employ of the Secretary of State who have been hired as advisors, executive assistants and/or administrators attached to any part of the Department and who are performing some functions in relation to the "Opportunities for Youth" program, the Youth Hostel program, the Kiosk program and/or the Travel program?
2.	What is the monthly salary of each individual?
3.	What were the processes involved in their hiring?

June 23, 1971



Hon. Gerard Pelletier
As at April 22nd.
Salary Range Mackie, Campbell Rangongo, Mabela Percy
Salary Range Austin, David De Long, Ed Gibson, David O'Brien, Peter Smith, Ron Tanguay, Germain Verreault, Raymonde Wade, H.
Zimmerman, Sheila Salary Range Andras, R. H.
Armstrong, Jan Bognar, Johanna Briggs, John Burreau, Bernard Cote, Michel Garneau, Braun Hade, Raymond Himbeault, Gene Hordo, Darryl Hutton, Ron Irving, Joan Malservisi, Mauro Michel, Maryse Prefontaine, Lise Ricard, Denis Rucker, Henry Saibel, George Simard, Guy Tremblay, Stan Varley, John Wellenstein, Jutta Wiseman, Huguette
Consultant Rates
Clement, W. R.
Cohen, Andy Drushka, Ken MacFarlane, Ramona Steiner, Ted
Salary Range Crosier, R.
Cruikshank, J.
Gushie, Mike Paiement, P.
Philips, B.
Roy, P. P.
Sansfagon, J. R.
Stagg, S.
Wally, R.
Wood, H.
(Secretary of State): 1. and 2.
$16,874-$18,720 Ottawa, Ontario Ottawa, Ontario
$11,131-$15,229 Toronto, Ontario Ottawa, Ontario Vancouver, B.C.
Halifax, N.S.
Charlottetown, P.E.I. Montreal, Que.
Montreal, Que.
Vancouver, B.C.
Ottawa, Ontario.
Questions
3.	The employees listed were hired by one of the following processes: (a) Loan from other departments; (b) Term appointments made by selection boards under the authority of the Public Service Act; (c) Special service contracts.


CNR-CONSTRUCTION OF NEW HOTEL AT ST. JOHN'S, NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Carter: 1 Is CNR planning the construction of a new hotel at St. John's, Newfoundland and, if so (a) on what date will construction commence (b) what are CNR plans for the existing hotel in St. John's?
2.	Have negotiations commenced for the acquisition of a site and, if so, at what location?
$9,569-$10,873 Ottawa, Ontario Ottawa, Ontario Montreal, Que.
Ottawa, Ontario Ottawa, Ontario Ottawa, Ontario Ottawa, Ontario Montreal, Que.
Regina, Sask.
Winnipeg, Man.
Ottawa, Ontario Montreal, Que.
Ste. Julie de Vercheres, Que. Ottawa, Ontario Hull, Que.
Cap de la Madeleine, Que. Ottawa, Ontario Richmond Hill, Ontario Ottawa, Ontario Ottawa, Ontario Colborne, Ontario Ottawa, Ontario Montreal, Que.
Between $30 and $125 per day
Toronto, Ontario Plantagenet, Ontario Vancouver, B.C.
Ottawa, Ontario Toronto, Ontario
$6,327-$8,327 Ottawa, Ontario Thunder Bay, Ontario St. John's, Nfld.
Montreal, Que.
Halifax, N.S.
Montreal, Que.
Montreal, Que.
Toronto, Ontario Winnipeg, Man.
Ottawa, Ontario


Gérard Duquet: The Management of Canadian
National Railways advises as follows: CN is exploring various means of improving its hotel operations in St. John's, but no final conclusions have been reached and the answers to the specific questions asked are in the negative at the present time.


INFORMATION RELATING TO ORDERS IN COUNCIL
Mr. Fortin: 1.	Is it intended that Orders in Council P.C. 1960-11/944, amended by P.C. 1966-9/707 and P.C. 1952-12/4544 regarding the responsibility of the State be published and, if not, for what reasons?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to submit legislation ensuring that the State shall be considered on the same basis as an adult capable person?


Mr. Barnett J. Danson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister):: 1. Order in Council P.C. 1952-12/4544 was revoked by Order in Council made September 23, 1970 and was replaced by National Defence Claims Order 1970 that was published in the Canada Gazette on October 14, 1970. It is intended that the Claims Regulations that were made by Order in Council P.C. 1960-11/944 and were amended by Orders in Council P.C. 1966-9/707 and P.C. 1968-10/1853 will shortly be revised and published immediately thereafter.
2.	The Crown's liability in tort and civil salvage is set out in the Crown Liability Act, S.C. 1952-53, Chapter 30. Whether the Government intends to submit legislation amending the Crown's liability is a matter that the Government will no doubt give notice of in due course.


MARITIME UNION
Mr. Coates: 1.	Has a request been received from any or all of the Maritime Provinces to the federal government to hold discussions based on the recommendations of the Maritime Union Report and, if so (a) from whom was the request for discussions received (b) what was the nature of each such request?

June 23, 1971
Questions
2 Have discussions been held between the federal government and any or all of the Maritime Provinces, relating to Maritime Union and what conclusions, if any, have resulted from such discussions?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1. No.
2.	No.


CBC-ALLOCATION OF TIME TO NATIONAL COUNCIL OF THE RALLIEMENT CREDITISTE AND NDP CONVENTION
Mr. Caoueite: 1.	In April 1971, how much time did CBC allocate (a) to the National Council of the Ralliement Creditiste (b) to the NDP convention, on both national radio and television networks?
2 In each case (a) what amount does this free-time represent according to the prevailing rates at this time for ordinary programs (b) how many technicians did CBC use in the production of these programs (c) what were the costs (i) in salaries (ii) in material (iii) in travelling for these programs?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of Slate):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. The New Democratic Party convention was a leadership contest and as such it was given more coverage than the National Council meetings of the Ralliement Creditiste. Total coverage including news items was as follows: Ralliement Creditiste: French Radio network, 37 minutes; French TV network, 7J minutes; English Radio network, 11J minutes; English TV network, 1 minute, 10 seconds. New Democratic Party: French Radio network, 8J hours; French TV network, 10 hours; English Radio network, 14J hours; English TV network, 17 hours.
2.	(a) The CBC does not sell time for broadcast coverage of political conventions and does not place a monetary value on such coverage. It would therefore be unrealistic to attempt comparisons on the basis of commercial rates for such air time and difficult to arrive at meaningful figures, (b) Because the NDP convention was a leadership contest originating from an outside location over a period of several days, 66 television and 18 radio technical personnel were assigned, some of whom were required only part-time during initial installation of equipment. The smaller amount of time given to the National Council of the Ralliement Creditiste, which consisted mainly of news items as studio originations, involved the use of about 15 technical personnel, (c) It has not been customary to require the CBC to disclose such details of its internal management and administration.

FEDERAL FINANCING OF PIUS Xn HOME FOR AGED, ROUYN, QUEBEC


Mr. Caouelie: How much did the federal government grant to the Pius XH Home for the Aged in Rouyn?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation approved a loan for $730,071 in May, 1969, to assist in the financing of the Pius XII Home for the Aged in the City of Rouyn.


CMHC ASSISTANCE TO QUEBEC HOUSING CORPORATION. 1969-70
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Were any grants or loans to the Socidte d'Habitation du Quebec by the federal government or Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation during the fiscal years 1969-1970 and 1970-1971 and, if so (a) how much (b) at what rate of interest (c) on what reimbursement conditions?


Robert Knight Andras: (a) (b) (c) See table following.
[Note: The Corporation's fiscal year is the calendar year.]
Gross Loans and Grants Approved Under the National Housing Act by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to Quebec Housing Corporation, 1969-1970
	1969		1970	
	No.	Amount $000	No.	Amount $000
Low-Rental, Section 16		Loans		
Term-50 years				
Interest Rate				
-61 per cent	55	30,301	-	--71 per cent	38	25,909	39	36,132Public Housing, Section 35D	Term-50 years	Interest Rate	-6} per cent	8	14,530	-	--71 per cent	36	37,542	12	9,614-8i per cent	-	-	48	55,014Student Housing, Section 36B	Term-50 years	Interest Rate	-6? per cent	9	13,038	-	--71 per cent	5	5,166	4	1,827-8| per cent	-	-	1	810Land for Housing, Section 23C	Term-15 years	Interest Rate	-61 per cent	6	4,305	-	--71 per cent	7	5,696	3	1,817Grants	Urban Renewal Studies,	Section 33(1) (h)	2	81	-	-Urban Renewal Schemes,	Section 23A	28	461	-	-Urban Renewal Implemen-	tation	Section 23B	13	19,298	4	4,872


Mr. MacDonald (Egmoni): 1.	Will the government disclose the policy and regulations that have been established with respect to the confidentiality of the census this year?

June 23, 1971

2.	What is the policy with regard to this year's census and what are the regulations?
3.	Does the government intend to store this census information in data banks in the United States?


Mr. Bruce Howard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada (Dominion Bureau of Statistics) reports that:
1- The 1971 Census of Canada is afforded the full protection of the Statistics Act in the same way as any other information collected under the Act. Section 6 (Oath of Office); Section 16 (Secrecy); and Section 28 (Offences and Punishment) assure that no identifiable individual data may be examined by other than persons sworn under the Act and employed or deemed to be employed under the Act. Disclosure of identifiable individual data to any other person or agency is prohibited.
2.	Under the provisions of the Statistics Act all persons resident in Canada are required to provide information as outlined in the Census questionnaires. Should they refuse or neglect to answer or answer falsely, they are guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $500 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or both.
3.	The Government does not intend to store any census information in data banks in the United States. As indicated in (1) no identifiable individual data is released to anyone not authorized under the Act. Published data which is not identifiable with individuals may, of course, be acquired or stored by anyone.


DATE AND SUBSTANCE OF LAST REFERENDUM
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	On what date was the last national referendum held and on what issue?
2.	Will the government consider a referendum on the subject of the establishment of national marketing agencies for farm products and, if not, for what reasons?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Prime Minister's and Privy Council Offices and the Department of Agriculture as follows:
1.	A vote was taken on April 27, 1942, under The Dominion Plebiscite Act, 1942, on a question set out in the ballot papers in the following words:
"Are you in favour of releasing the government from
any obligation arising out of past commitments restricting the methods of raising men for military service."
2.	Under the terms of the Bill now before Parliament respecting the establishment of national marketing agencies, the Governor-in-Council must be satisfied that the majority of producers of a commodity want an agency before one is established. The Governor-in-Council is required to use any method he considers appropriate to determine majority support. If a national referendum is considered the most appropriate under the circumstances
Questions
of the situation it is not precluded by the terms of the Bill.


CMHC ASSISTANCE TO ST-MAGLOIRE HOME, BELLECHASSE CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Was a loan granted in December 1968 by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation toward the construction of the St-Magloire Home in the constituency of Bellechasse and, if so (a) in what amount (b) was it made directly to the corporation of the said Home or through the Societe d'Habitation du Quebec?


Robert Knight Andras: (a) (b) Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation approved a loan in December, 1968, through the Quebec Housing Corporation, to assist in the financing of the St-Magloire Home in the Municipal County of Bellechasse, in the amount of $260,000.



CNR-SUPPLY OF HEATING AND DIESEL OIL TO STATIONS AT QUEBEC CITY AND JOFFRE

['Information is not now available to provide an accurate answer to this question and the necessary expert staff is not available to undertake the large amount of work which would be required to gather the necessary information.']
Gérard Duquet: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows:
1.	The purchase of oil for heating Palais Station is arranged by the C.P.R. At Joffre the following companies have supplied or are supplying heating oil during the periods indicated: 1969, Irving Oil Company, Limited; 1970/72, Canadian Import-Quebec.
Diesel oil has been supplied at Limoilou Yard and Joffre by the undernoted firms: 1969/70, Canadian Import-Quebec; 1971, Golden Eagle Canada Limited.
2.	It is not the company's practice to disclose details of transactions which would reveal suppliers' business affairs to the detriment of the railway's continuing ability to negotiate advantageously.
3. With the exception of the current arrangement which is for two years for the supply of heating oil, contracts are for a one year period.



Mr. Yewchuk: Has the government any statistics available on the size of Japanese direct investment in Canada for the past ten years and if not, for what reasons?	'


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Statistics Canada (Dominion Bureau of Statistics) reports that: Statistics on the size of Japanese direct investment in

June 23, 1971
Questions
Canada are collected by Statistics Canada (Dominion Bureau of Statistics) and are included in published data relating to the totals of Canada's International Investment Position. Separate data for Japan have not been shown in the publications up to now as the amounts were relatively small and concentrated in only a few companies. With the increased role played by this investment the next publication dealing with Canada's International Investment Position will, however, show the book value of Japanese direct investment in Canada as a separate breakdown. At the end of 1967 the book value of this investment amounted to $34 million.


FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO URBAN RENEWAL PROGRAM, SUDBURY, ONTARIO
Mr. Serre: What was the financial contribution of the federal government to the urban renewal program In Sudbury, Ontario since the inception of the program?


Robert Knight Andras: The Federal contribution to the urban renewal program in Sudbury, Ontario, through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, as at April 30th, 1971, is shown in the following table.
Item
Study-Sect. 33(l)(h)
Scheme Preparation-Sect. 23A Scheme Implementation-Sect. 23B Loan for Implementation-Sect. 23C
Authorized Date	Amount
October	1959	17,650February,	1965	13,559March,	1967	9,430,099June,	1969	1,404,234
Expenditures
to
April, 30 1971 17,650 13,559 7,749,868 1,404,234


FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF FOYER SAINTE-CLAIRE INC.
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Has the government provided any financial help for the construction of Foyer Sainte-Claire Inc. in Sainte-Claire (Belle-chasse) Quebec and, if so (a) what was the amount (b) what were the conditions?


James Alexander Jerome: No.


AIRCRAFT LANDING FACILITIES
Mr. Mather: 1.	To the knowledge of the government, what was the number of aircraft landing facilities in Canada in 1969 and 1970?
2.	What number of these are (a) publicly (b) privately owned?
3.	What was the number of facilities by province and territory?


Gérard Duquet: 1. 1969 number of known landing facilities 1694. 1970 number of known landing facilities 1732. (The above figures include Land, Water, Heliports, Licensed and Unlicensed. Also, Abandoned and those operated by Military or RCMP).
(a) 1969 publicly owned			551
(b) 1969 privately owned			911
(c) 1969 operator unknown			177
(d) 1969	Military & RCMP		55
			1694
	1969		
Province	land	helicopter	waterB.C.	171	20	137Alta.	196	2	23Sask.	162	0	34Man.	63	1	56Ont.	154	13	131Que.	115	6	93N.B.	24	1	6N.S.	15	1	7P.E.I.	4	1	1Nfld.	24	0	19N.W.T.	58	1	42Yukon	20	1	11
55 Military = 1668 26 Abandoned

(a) 1970 publicly owned		534
(b) 1970 privately owned		961
(c) 1970 operator unknown		183
(d) 1970 Military & RCMP		54
		1732
	1970	
land helicopter		water
167	18	118194	2	23166	0	3866	1	59162	12	146121	6	9124	1	1215	1	74	1	129	0	1876	0	4423	1	1154 Military = 1702	
30 Abandoned
June 23, 1971


Mr. Forreslall: With respect to the establishment of STOL type air service between Ottawa and Montreal, is it the intention of the Department of Transport to permit privately owned aircraft with STOL capability to operate in and out of both facilities?


Gérard Duquet: 1. The Department of Transport is actively engaged in work which will lead to the detailed definition of the characteristics of STOL air transport systems including the design criteria of STOL-ports. This work is directed towards optimising the STOL system. The operating criteria and regulations applicable to aircraft using the STOLports will emerge from this work when it is completed late in 1972.


TOLL FACILITIES
Mr. Goode: Does the government operate any toll facilities and, if so, what is the location and purpose of each?


Gérard Duquet: The Department of Transport advises as follows: Tolls are collected for us by the Canadian National Railways for the following ferry services: North Sydney, Newfoundland; Yarmouth, Bar Harbor; Borden, Tormentine.
The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority advises as follows: Yes. For the transit by vessels of the St. Lawrence Seaway between Montreal and Lake Erie.
The Seaway International Bridge Corporation, Ltd., a subsidiary of The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority advises as follows: Yes. For vehicular transits on the Seaway International Bridge which crosses the St. Lawrence River between Cornwall, Ontario, and Masse-na, New York.
The National Harbours Board advises as follows: The National Harbours Board operates toll facilities on Champlain Bridge.
Location: Montreal.
Purpose: For vehicular transits on the Champlain Bridge.


LANDING STRIPS
Mr. Laprise: 1.	How many landing strips are now in use in the constituency of Abitibi and what is the location of each?
2.	(a) How many landing strips are under construction (b) where is each located (c) are any projected for the years 19711972?
3.	Have grants been made to Quebecair or Fecteau Transport for (a) the purchase (b) the transportation (c) the reconstruction of a hangar or garage anywhere from Matane to Amos?


Gérard Duquet: 1, Seven: Amos (currently being re-
Questions
surfaced with crushed stone), Amos Municipal, Deception Bay, Fort George, La Sarre, Matagami (ski strip only), Post De La Baleine.
2.	(a) Two; (b) Chibougamau, Inoucdjouac; (c) Povungnituk, Paint Hill.
3.	No.


ELK ISLAND PARK
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	What was the estimated budget for the operations of Elk Island Park for the following years: 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72?
2.	What were the actual expenditures for the years 1968-69
1969-70 and 1970-71?	'


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Budget for Operation of Elk Island National Park. 1. Estimated Budget
Operation	and Maintenance	Capital1968-69	522,400	108,1551969-70	404,607	109,8021970-71	419,500	37,1701971-72	397,100	74,0002. Actual Expenditures	Operation	and Maintenance	Capital1968-69	497,142	100,9501969-70	389,971	110,1411970-71	405,609	37,6531971-72


FEASIBILITY OF LANGUAGE TRAINING IN THE MILITIA
Mr. Robinson: Will the government consider the feasibility of making language training available in the Militia?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: Yes; however, as large numbers of Regular Force personnel still require language training, it is not intended to implement such a program for Militia personnel for some considerable time.


DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS- CONFERENCES OR COURSES HELD FOR EMPLOYEES
Mr. Schumacher: 1.	During the fiscal years (a) 1968-69 (b) 1969-70 (c) 1970-71 were any conferences or courses held for employees of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?
2.	In each case (a) where were such meetings held (b) what were the reasons for choice of location (c) what was the duration of the conferences or courses (d) what conclusions were reached?

June 23, 1971
Questions
3.	In each case (a) how many employees attended (b) what position did each hold (c) what expenses were involved for (i) transportation (ii) accommodation (iii) meals and per diem expenses (iv) registrations or fees?
4.	Did any expenses involve wives or families and, if so (a) what was the amount and for whom in each case (b) who authorized such expenditures in each case?
5.	In each case, what mode of transportation was involved for (a) these attending (b) wives or families?


James Alexander Jerome: Information is not now available to provide an accurate answer to this question and the necessary expert staff is not available to undertake the large amount of work which would be required to gather the necessary information.



DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES-CONFERENCES OR COURSES HELD FOR EMPLOYEES

['Immigration to Canada from Saint-Pierre and Miquelon\nYear\tNumber\n1960\t50\n1961\t17\n1962\t26\n1963\t21\n1964\t16\n1965\t19\n1966\t37\n1967\t20\n1968\t26\n1969\t15\n1970\t13\nTotal\n7290', 'June 23, 1971\nOrder for Return']
James Alexander Jerome: See reply to Question No. 1,519 answered this day.



Mr. Schumacher: 1.	During the fiscal years (a) 1968-69 (b) 1969-70 (c) 1970-71, were any conferences or courses held for employees of the Department of Manpower and Immigration?
2. In each case (a) where were such meetings held (b) what were the reasons for choice of location (c) what was the duration of the conferences or courses (d) what conclusions were reached?
3.	In each case (a) how many employees attended (b) what position did each hold (c) what expenses were involved for (i) transportation (ii) accommodation (iii) meals and per diem expenses (iv) registrations or fees?
4.	Did any expenses involve wives or families and, if so (a) what was the amount and for whom in each case?
5.	In each case, what mode of transportation was involved for (a) those attending (b) wives or families?


James Alexander Jerome: See reply to Question No. 1,519 answered this day.


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE-CONFERENCES OR COURSES HELD FOR EMPLOYEES
Mr. Schumacher: 1.	During the fiscal years (a) 1968-69 (b) 1969-70 (c) 1970-71, were any conferences or courses held for employees of the Department of National Revenue?
2.	In each case (a) where were such meetings held (b) what were the reasons for choice of location (c) what was the duration of the conferences or courses (d) what conclusions were reached?
3.	In each case (a) how many employees attended (b) what position did each hold (c) what expenses were involved for (i) transportation (ii) accommodation (iii) meals and per diem expenses (iv) registrations or fees?
4.	Did any expenses involve wives or families and, if so (a) what was the amount and for whom in each case (b) who authorized such expenditures in each case?
5.	In each case, what mode of transportation was involved for (a) those attending (b) wives or families?


James Alexander Jerome: See reply to Question No. 1,519 answered this day.


DEPARTMENT OF SOLICITOR GENERAL-CONFERENCES OR COURSES HELD FOR EMPLOYEES
Mr. Schumacher: 1.	During the fiscal years (a) 1968-69 (b) 1969-70 (c) 1970-71, were any conferences or courses held for employees of the Department of the Solicitor General?
2.	In each case (a) where were such meetings held (b) what were the reasons for choice of location (c) what was the duration of the conferences or courses (d) what conclusions were reached?
3.	In each case (a) how many employees attended (b) what position did each hold (c) what expenses were involved for (i) transportation (ii) accommodation (iii) meals and per diem expenses (iv) registrations or fees?
4.	Did any expenses involve wives or families and, if so (a) what was the amount and for whom in each case (b) who authorized such expenditures in each case?
5.	In each case, what mode of transportation was involved for (a) those attending (b) wives or families?


James Alexander Jerome: See reply to Question No. 1,519 answered this day.


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT-CONFERENCES OR COURSES HELD FOR EMPLOYEES
Mr. Schumacher: 1.	During the fiscal years (a) 1968-69 (b) 1969-70 (c) 1970-71, were any conferences or courses held for employees of the Department of Transport?
June 23, 1971

2	In each case (a) where were such meetings held (b) what were the reasons for choice of location (c) what was the duration of the conferences or courses (d) what conclusions were reached?
3- In each case (a) how many employees attended (b) what position did each hold (c) what expenses were involved for (i) transportation (ii) accommodation (iii) meals and per diem expenses (iv) registrations or fees?
4.	Did any expenses involve wives or families and, if so (a) what was the amount and for whom in each case (b) who authorized such expenditures in each case?
5.	In each case, what mode of transportation was involved for (a) those attending (b) wives or families?


James Alexander Jerome: See reply to Question No. 1,519 answered this day.


DEPARTMENT OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-CONFERENCES OR COURSES HELD FOR EMPLOYEES
Mr. Schumacher: 1.	During the fiscal years (a) 1968-69 (b) 1969-70 (c) 1970-71, were any conferences or courses held for employees of the Department of the Secretary of State for External Affairs?
2.	In each case (a) where were such meetings held (b) what were the reasons for choice of location (c) what was the duration of the conferences or courses (d) what conclusions were reached?
3.	In each case (a) how many employees attended (b) what position did each hold (c) what expenses were involved for (i) transportation (ii) accommodation (iii) meals and per diem expenses (iv) registrations or fees?
4.	Did any expenses involve wives or families and, if so (a) what was the amount and for whom in each case (b) who authorized such expenditures in each case?
5.	In each case, what mode of transportation was involved for (a) those attending (b) wives or families?


James Alexander Jerome: See reply to Question No. 1,519 this day.


Mr. Schumacher: 1 During the fiscal years (a) 1968-69 (b) 1969-70 (c) 1970-71, were any conferences or courses held for employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs?
2.	In each case (a) where were such meetings held (b) what were the reasons for choice of location (c) what was the duration of the conferences or courses (d) what conclusions were reached?
3.	In each case (a) how many employees attended (b) what position did each hold (c) what expenses were involved for (i) transportation (ii) accommodation (iii) meals and per diem expenses (iv) registrations or fees?
4.	Did any expenses involve wives or families and, if so (a) what was the amount and for whom in each case (b) who authorized such expenditures in each case?
5.	In each case, what mode of transportation was involved for (a) those attending (b) wives or families?
Questions


James Alexander Jerome: See reply to Question No. 1,519 answered this day.


Mr. Schumacher: 1 During the fiscal years (a) 1968-69 (b) 1969-70 (c) 1970-71, were any conferences or courses held for employees of the Department of Agriculture and/or any agencies of the Department?
2.	In each case (a) where were such meetings held (b) what were the reasons for choice of location (c) what was the duration of the conferences or courses (d) what conclusions were reached?
3.	In each case (a) how many employees attended (b) what position did each hold (c) what expenses were involved for (i) transportation (ii) accommodation (iii) meals and per diem expenses (iv) registrations or fees?
4.	Did any expenses involve wives or families and, if so (a) what was the amount and for whom in each case (b) who authorized such expenditures in each case?
5.	In each case, what mode of transportation was involved for (a) those attending (b) wives or families?


James Alexander Jerome: See reply to Question No. 1,519 answered this day.


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	During the fiscal years (a) 1968-69 (b) 1969-70 (c) 1970-71, were any conferences or courses held for employees of the Department of National Health and Welfare?
2.	In each case (a) where were such meetings held (b) what were the reasons for choice of location (c) what was the duration of the conferences or courses (d) what conclusions were reached?
3.	In each case (a) how many employees attended (b) what position did each hold (c) what expenses were involved for (i) transportation (ii) accommodation (iii) meals and per diem expenses (iv) registrations or fees?
4.	Did any expenses involve wives or families and, if so (a) what was the amount and for whom in each case (b) who authorized such expenditures in each case?
5.	In each case, what mode of transportation was involved for (a) those attending (b) wives or families?


James Alexander Jerome: See reply to Question No. 1,519 answered this day.
CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION AND/ OR NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION-CONFERENCES OR COURSES HELD FOR EMPLOYEES


Mr. Schumacher: 1 During the fiscal years (a) 1968-69 (b) 1969-70 (c) 1970-71, were any conferences or courses held for employees of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and/or the National Capital Commission?

June 23, 1971
Questions
2.	In each case (a) where were such meetings held (b) what were the reasons for choice of location (c) what was the duration of the conferences or courses (d) what conclusions were reached?
3.	In each case (a) how many employees attended (b) what position did each hold (c) what expenses were involved for (i) transportation (ii) accommodation (iii) meals and per diem expenses (iv) registrations or fees?
4.	Did any expenses involve wives or families and, if so (a) what was the amount and for whom in each case (b) who authorized such expenditures in each case?
5.	In each case, what mode of transportation was involved for (a) those attending (b) wives or families?


James Alexander Jerome: See reply to Question No. 1,519 answered this day.


Mr. Schumacher: 1 During the fiscal years (a) 1968-69 (b) 1969-70 (c) 1970-71, were any conferences or courses held for employees of the Post Office Department?
2.	In each case (a) where were such meetings held (b) what were the reasons for choice of location (c) what was the duration of the conferences or courses (d) what conclusions were reached?
3.	In each case (a) how many employees attended (b) what position did each hold (c) what expenses were involved for (i) transportation (ii) accommodation (iii) meals and per diem expenses (iv) registrations or fees?
4.	Did any expenses involve wives or families and, if so (a) what was the amount and for whom in each case (b) who authorized such expenditures in each case?
5.	In each case, what mode of transportation was involved for (a) those attending (b) wives or families?


James Alexander Jerome: See reply to Question No. 1,519 answered this day.


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	During the fiscal years (a) 1968-69 (b) 1969-70 (c) 1970-71, were any conferences or courses held for employees of the Department of the Secretary of State, including the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the National Film Board and/or any other agencies for whom the Minister of this Department reports to Parliament?
2.	In each case (a) where were such meetings held (b) what were the reasons for choice of location (c) what was the duration of the conferences or courses (d) what conclusions were reached?
3.	In each case (a) how many employees attended (b) what position did each hold (c) what expenses were involved for (i) transportation (ii) accommodation (iii) meals and per diem expenses (iv) registrations or fees?
4.	Did any expenses involve wives or families and, if so (a) what was the amount and for whom in each case (b) who authorized such expenditures in each case?
5.	In each case, what mode of transportation was involved for (a) those attending (b) wives or families?


James Alexander Jerome: See reply to Question No. 1,519 answered this day.


Mr. Schumacher: 1 During the fiscal years (a) 1968-69 (b) 1969-70 (c) 1970-71, were any conferences or courses held for employees of the Department of Environment?
2.	In each case (a) where were such meetings held (b) what were the reasons for choice of location (c) what was the duration of the conferences or courses (d) what conclusions were reached?
3.	In each case (a) how many employees attended (b) what position did each hold (c) what expenses were involved for (i) transportation (ii) accommodation (iii) meals and per diem expenses (iv) registrations or fees?
4.	Did any expenses involve wives or families and, if so (a) what was the amount and for whom in each case (b) who authorized such expenditures in each case?
5.	In each case, what mode of transportation was involved for (a) those attending (b) wives or families?


James Alexander Jerome: See reply to Question No. 1,519 answered this day.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): During the fall of 1970, was a shipment of animals from Europe sent to the quarantine station in Grosse lie, Quebec and, if so (a) were the animals unloaded at the Berthier-en-Bas wharf or at the Pointe-au-Pic wharf (b) if they were unloaded at Pointe-au-Pic, for what reason?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: (a) On
October 24, 1970, 233 head of cattle from continental Europe were sent to Grosse lie, Quebec, (b) The animals were unloaded directly at Grosse lie wharf and at no time were cattle entering Canada from Europe unloaded at Berthier-en-Bas wharf or at the Pointe-au-Pic wharf.


Mr. Southam: 1.	To May 31, 1971, how many applications for incentive grants have been received from the Province of Saskatchewan?
2.	How many of the applications (a) have been approved (b) have been rejected (c) are still under study?
3.	(a) What is the name and location of each project accepted (b) what is the amount of incentive grants in each case (c) what are the estimated number of new jobs involved in each project?

June 23, 1971


Abram Ernest Epp: 1. Ninety three.
Questions
2.	(a) 33; (b) 21; (c) 21.
(18 were withdrawn by applicant)
3.	(a)	Name and Location
Homco Industries Ltd., Estevan Hara Products Ltd., Swift Current Moose Jaw Packers Ltd., Moose Jaw Frontier Grain Cleaning Ltd., Swift Current Canaday's Apparel Ltd., Moose Jaw Patricia Leather Products, Redvers Agra Industries, Nipawin Premier Products Co., Humboldt Em jay Plastics Ltd., Moose Jaw Trans-Canada Steel Products, Moose Jaw Central Canadian Distillers Corp., Weybum Western Automotive Rebuilders, Saskatoon Quality Furs Limited, Regina Regina Paper Box and Printing Ltd., Regina Wescott Casuals Ltd., Saskatoon West-Core Steel Limited, Saskatoon Burnell's Sports Jackets Ltd., Saskatoon Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, Saskatoon Meadow Lake Sawmill Co. Ltd., Meadow Lake Roll-O-Flex (1970) Ltd., Regina Frank's Welding and Machine Ltd., Saskatoon Saskatoon Co-operative Association Ltd., Saskatoon Carlin Holdings Ltd., Saskatoon Native Metal Industries Ltd., Regina Burns Foods Limited, Saskatoon Waldman and Paul Ltd., Saskatoon Master Feeds, (Div. of Maple Leaf Mills Ltd.), Saskatoon
Westank Industries Ltd., Regina Interprovincial Steel and Pipe Corporation Ltd., Regina
(Four offers are pending)
Estimated
(b)	$ Incentive
Estimated (c) Jobs
34,095	10
26,320	20
10,500	4
48,108	4
8,400	40
40,360	14
123,200	8
512,700	207
136,090	30
15,000	19
525,000	24
75,280	108
31,190	25
27,800	8
276,900	176
95,380	37
55,065	21
440,000	21
479.500	80
144,627	100
27,590	5
35,380	15
27,375	9
41,877	46
63,450	6
123,500	62
86,001	5
176,156	42
524,430	196


Mr. Southam: 1.	During the years 1968, 1969, 1970, how much compensation was paid by the federal government through enabling provincial legislation for loss of livestock from rabies?
2.	In each case, what type of animal, and what was the number involved?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 1. 1968-69, $20,998; 1969-70, $38,417; 1970-71, $45,609.
Type	1968-69	1969-70	1970-71Bovine	570	604	530Swine	40	52	29Sheep	56	61	43Horses	34	41	23Goats	2	1	2Grand Total	702	759	627
24171-41J


Mr. Anderson: 1.	Do any programs of the Canadian International Development Agency provide DDT or DDD to other nations?
2.	Are any funds of the Canadian International Development Agency used in projects abroad (a) to manufacture DDT or DDD (b) to encourage developing countries to use alternatives more expensive than DDT or DDD?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. No. 2. (a) No; (b) no.


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	During the fiscal years (a) 1968-69 (b) 1969-70 (c) 1970-71, were any conferences or courses held for employees of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion?

June 23, 1971
Questions
2.	In each case (a) where were such meetings held (b) what were the reasons for choice of location (c) what was the duration of the conferences or courses (d) what conclusions were reached?
3.	In each case (a) how many employees attended (b) what position did each hold (c) what expenses were involved for (i) transportation (ii) accommodation (iii) meals and per diem expenses (iv) registrations or fees?
4.	Did any expenses involve wives or families and, if so (a) what was the amount and for whom in each case (b) who authorized such expenditures in each case?
5.	In each case, what mode of transportation was involved for (a) those attending (b) wives or families?


James Alexander Jerome: See reply to Question No. 1,519 answered this day.


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	During the fiscal years (a) 1968-69 (b) 1969-70 (c) 1970-71, were any conferences or courses held for employees of the Department of National Defence?
2.	In each case (a) where were such meetings held (b) what were the reasons for choice of location (c) what was the duration of the conferences or courses (d) what conclusions were reached?
3	In each case (a) how many employees attended (b) what position did each hold (c) what expenses were involved for (i) transportation (ii) accommodation (iii) meals and per diem expenses (iv) registrations or fees?
4.	Did any expenses involve wives or families and, if so (a) what was the amount and for whom in each case (b) who authorized such expenditures in each case?
5.	In each case, what mode of transportation was involved for (a) those attending (b) wives or families?


James Alexander Jerome: See reply to Question No. 1,519 answered this day.


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	During the fiscal years (a) 1968-69 (b) 1969-70 (c) 1970-71, were any conferences or courses held for employees of the Department of Labour?
2.	In each case (a) where were such meetings held (b) what were the reasons for choice of location (c) what was the duration of the conferences or courses (d) what conclusions were reached?
3.	In each case (a) how many employees attended (b) what position did each hold (c) what expenses were involved for (i) transportation (ii) accommodation (iii) meals and per diem expenses (iv) registrations or fees?
4.	Did any expenses involve wives or families and, if so (a) what was the amount and for whom in each case (b) who authorized such expenditures in each case?
5.	In each case, what mode of transportation was involved for (a) those attending (b) wives or families?


James Alexander Jerome: See reply to Question No. 1,519 answered this day.


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	During the fiscal years (a) 1968-69 (b) 1969-70 (c) 1970-71, were any conferences or courses held for employees of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?
2.	In each case (a) where were such meetings held (b) what were the reasons for choice of location (c) what was the duration of the conferences or courses (d) what conclusions were reached?
3.	In each case (a) how many employees attended (b) what position did each hold (c) what expenses were involved for (i) transportation (ii) accommodation (iii) meals and per diem expenses (iv) registrations or fees?
4.	Did any expenses involve wives or families and, if so (a) what was the amount and for whom in each case (b) who authorized such expenditures in each case?
5.	In each case, what mode of transportation was involved for (a) those attending (b) wives or families?


James Alexander Jerome: See reply to Question No. 1,519 answered this day.


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	During the fiscal years (a) 1968-69 (b) 1969-70 (c) 1970-71, were any conferences or courses held for employees of the Department of Justice?
2.	In each case (a) where were such meetings held (b) what were the reasons for choice of location (c) what was the duration of the conferences or courses (d) what conclusions were reached?
3 In each case (a) how many employees attended (b) what position did each hold (c) what expenses were involved for (i) transportation (ii) accommodation (iii) meals and per diem expenses (iv) registrations or fees?
4.	Did any expenses involve wives or families and, if so (a) what was the amount and for whom in each case (b) who authorized such expenditures in each case?
5.	In each case, what mode of transportation was involved for (a) those attending (b) wives or families?


James Alexander Jerome: See reply to Question No. 1,519 answered this day.


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	During the fiscal years (a) 1968-69 (b) 1969-70 (c) 1970-71, were any conferences or courses held for employees of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources?
2.	In each case (a) where were such meetings held (b) what were the reasons for choice of location (c) what was the duration of the conferences or courses (d) what conclusions were reached?

June 23, 1971

3.	In each case (a) how many employees attended (b) what position did each hold (c) what expenses were involved for (i) transportation (ii) accommodation (iii) meals and per diem expenses (iv) registrations or fees?
4.	Did any expenses involve wives or families and, if so (a) what was the amount and for whom in each case (b) who authorized such expenditures in each case?
5.	In each case, what mode of transportation was involved for (a) those attending (b) wives or families?


James Alexander Jerome: See reply to Question No. 1,519 answered this day.


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	During the fiscal years (a) 1968-69 (b) 1969-70 (c) 1970-71, were any conferences or courses held for employees of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce?
2.	In each case (a) where were such meetings held (b) what were the reasons for choice of location (c) what was the duration of the conferences or courses (d) what conclusions were reached?
3.	In each case (a) how many employees attended (b) what position did each hold (c) what expenses were involved for (i) transportation (ii) accommodation (iii) meals and per diem expenses (iv) registrations or fees?
4.	Did any expenses involve wives or families and, if so (a) what was the amount and for whom in each case (b) who authorized such expenditures in each case?
5.	In each case, what mode of transportation was involved for (a) those attending (b) wives or families?


James Alexander Jerome: See reply to Question No. 1,519 answered this day.


Mr. Schumacher: 1. During the fiscal years (a) 1968-69 (b) 1969-70 (c) 1970-71, were any conferences or courses held for employees of the Department of Finance?
2 In each case (a) where were such meetings held (b) what were the reasons for choice of location (c) what was the duration of the conferences or courses (d) what conclusions were reached?
3.	In each case (a) how many employees attended (b) what position did each hold (c) what expenses were involved for (i) transportation (ii) accommodation (iii) meals and per diem expenses (iv) registrations or fees?
4.	Did any expenses involve wives or families and, if so (a) what was the amount and for whom in each case (b) who authorized such expenditures in each case?
5.	In each case, what mode of transportation was involved for (a) those attending (b) wives or families?


James Alexander Jerome: See reply to Question No. 1,519 answered this day.
Questions


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	During the fiscal years (a) 1968-69 (b) 1969-70 (c) 1970-71, were any conferences or courses held for employees of the Department of Public Works?
2.	In each case (a) where were such meetings held (b) what were the reasons for choice of location (c) what was the duration of the conferences or courses (d) what conclusions were reached?
3.	In each case (a) how many employees attended (b) what position did each hold (c) what expenses were involved for (i) transportation (ii) accommodation (iii) meals and per diem expenses (iv) registrations or fees?
4.	Did any expenses involve wives or families and, if so (a) what was the amount and for whom in each case (b) who authorized such expenditures in each case?
5.	In each case, what mode of transportation was involved for (a) those attending (b) wives or families?


James Alexander Jerome: See reply to Question No. 1,519 answered this day.


Mr. Forrestall: Is it the intention of the government to dispose of the site of the Canadian Forces Ammunition Depot, Blainville, Quebec and, if so, to what other department or departments of the government?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, when this military establishment is closed in 1972, the site will be declared surplus to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation.


Mr. Laprise: How many persons from Saint-Pierre and Miquelon Islands emigrated to Canada each year since 1960?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Immigration to Canada from Saint-Pierre and Miquelon
Year	Number
1960	50
1961	17
1962	26
1963	21
1964	16
1965	19
1966	37
1967	20
1968	26
1969	15
1970	13
Total
7290

June 23, 1971
Order for Return



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Benjamin: 1.	What was the proposed management fee for Metro Parking Ltd. for each of the five years from the commencement of their contract for operation of the parking concession at the Vancouver International Airport in September 1968?
2.	(a) What was the amount stated in the contract for salaries and wages in each of those years (b) what has been the annual cost of salaries and wages to date (c) has the government paid any amounts for salaries and wages additional to the amounts stated in the contract and, if so, what are the amounts?
3.	What are the hourly rates of pay in this operation?
4.	What was the total amount of Metro's deposit to the credit of the Receiver-General in each of the months since commencement of their operation?
5.	In what amounts have semi-monthly payments been made to Metro commencing in September 1968?
6.	Have any payments additional to the contract amounts been made to Metro parking since September 1968 and, if so (a) in what amounts (b) for what reason?
7.	Was any allowance made in the contract for loss of revenue caused by break-down of equipment and, if so, what are the amounts allowed to date?
8.	What is the monthly average number of cars parked at this concession?
9.	Is any audit made of revenues received and, if so (a) by whom (b) is an audit report available?
Return tabled.


Mr. Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege with regard to starred question No. 40 which stands in my name. It has been on the order paper since October 8, more than eight months ago. It reads as follows:
What are the results of the inquiry undertaken by the Minister of National Health and Welfare into the news leak of the report of the LeDain Commission on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs?
On at least three occasions I have asked what progress is being made with respect to answering this question. I have received the answer, in almost apologetic terms, that the matter would be looked into and an answer would be forthcoming shortly. I submit that an abuse of the rules is involved here. I understand that there is only one more opportunity for questions to be answered before the de facto end of this session. I submit that the answer is available and the minister responsible knows the answer. He is refraining from replying because it will either embarrass him or someone in his office.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Frank Howard: Although I disagree with the rule, it is provided that a minister is not required to answer a question. If that is the case, the minister should have the courage to stand up and say that he is not going to answer it. He should not use the subterfuge of undertaking to look into a question and provide an answer and then refuse to do so for fear of embarrassing someone very close to him, perhaps even himself.


Mr. Munro:: Perhaps I might speak to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I realize the question has been on the order paper for some time, but in order to provide an answer to a question of this kind one must wait until all the necessary investigations have been completed. There is a time span involved. There is certainly no desire on my part to avoid giving an answer, and as soon as I am able to reply I will do so.


Mr. Woolliams:: That is a weak excuse.


Mr. Orlikow:: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. On October 8 of last year I put question No. 79 on the order paper. As a matter of fact, the question was on the order paper last session, if I remember correctly. The question is not particularly difficult to answer. It asks who were the outside consultants, individuals or companies, who have undertaken studies or provided assistance to the Prime Minister's office or to the Privy Council office, what were their terms of reference and what remuneration they received. I submit that this is not a difficult question to answer. If the person responsible for answering the question had said that it would not be answered, I could have gone to the committee meeting at which the estimates of the Prime Minister's office were under consideration-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that it is not in order, on an alleged question of privilege, to make the kind of point the hon. member is making. There may be an argument on a point of order but certainly there is no question of privilege. I would hope that the hon. member having made his point, the matter might be allowed to stand for consideration.


Mr. McKinley:: Mr. Speaker, question No. 1,048 has been on the Order Paper since March 2. I consider it extremely important and would appreciate an answer before the summer recess, if possible.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions Nos. 201, 238 and 240 are acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations or conditions expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that notices of motions Nos. 201, 238 and 240 be deemed to have been accepted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

June 23, 1971



COPY OF DOCUMENTS CONCERNING NEW BRUNSWICK MULTIPLEX CORPORATION

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 201-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the following documents concerning New Brunswick Multiplex Corporation (a) articles of incorporation (b) memorandum of association (c) list of shareholders together with a number of shares held by each.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 238-Mr. Thomson:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the letter of offer for an industrial incentive grant for a pulp mill north of Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan, sent to D. G. Steuart on May 7, 1971.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 240-Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of documents relating to the request made by the Canadian Chemcell Ltd. for a grant from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and of the answer of the Department promising a grant to this company for the modernization of its factories in Montmagny, Drummondville and Coaticook and of the terms of the grant.
Motion agreed to.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion No. 204 is acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents and the authorization of the government authorities concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the conditions stated by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that Notice of Motion No. 204 be deemed to be agreed to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 204-Mr. Yewchuk:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all documents, memoranda, correspondence, etc., exchanged between the Government of Canada and the Province of Alberta, pertaining to the programs and projects for Lac La Biche, i.e. outline of special ARDA agreement concerning programs and projects of benefit mainly to people of Indian ancestry.
Motion agreed to.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, would you call notices of motions Nos. 200 and 241.
Motions for Paper



CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING ESTABLISHMENT OF FAR EAST YOUTH HOSTEL, CHARLOTTETOWN

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 200-Mr. Macquarrie:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence, memoranda, etc., between the Government of Canada or any agency or department thereof and the Government of Prince Edward Island, the City of Charlottetown or any other party or individual concerning the establishment of the Far East Hostel at Charlottetown in 1970.
Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, since the correspondence in relation to the Far East Youth Hostel in Charlottetown is kept confidential, I would urge the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I think national security could sustain the shock of the publication of this correspondence and I ask that the motion be put.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the House that the motion be put at this time?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS IN COMPTON CONSTITUENCY

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 241-Mr. Laiulippe:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all briefs, correspondence and other documents between the government and municipalities, individuals and agencies in the constituency of Compton concerning the construction of post office buildings or any other buildings in this constituency from January 1, 1968, to the present time.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, this motion is exactly the same as Motion No. 230, which was accepted by the government on May 26, 1971. We shall be tabling the documents as soon as they are available, so I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the wish of the hon. member to withdraw his motion?


Mr. Latulippe:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Motion withdrawn and order discharged.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Inquiries of the Ministry



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
June 23, 1971


Hon. Roberi L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Since the Prime Minister said today outside the House that constitutional discussion is not very important, does this mean that the government of Canada is willing to go along indefinitely with the present procedures of constitutional amendment, including eventual resort to the Parliament at Westminster?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Prime Minister too, and I do not think what he said could be characterized in the way the Leader of the Opposition has characterized it. The government does consider constitutional discussion to be important. If I recall the attitude of the Prime Minister, which is also the attitude of the government, of course-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: -he is awaiting clarification of the views of the Prime Minister of Quebec. The statement made by the Prime Minister of Quebec contains a sentence which I should like to read to the House:
The text bearing on income security allows uncertainty to remain which goes badly with the inherent objective of constitutional revision. If this uncertainty were eliminated our conclusion might be different.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Would the Acting Prime Minister tell the House whether the government of Canada is willing to go along indefinitely with the present procedures regarding constitutional amendment? If so, does the government intend to consult the provinces on a possible new method of amendment within the present framework involving the necessity of going to the British Parliament?


Mitchell William Sharp: I think the next step in the consultations which have been proceeding and which have made so much progress is to await the views of the Prime Minister of Quebec which the Prime Minister of Canada, as chairman of the constitutional conference, will be glad to receive and transmit to the provinces if that appears desirable.



REJECTION OF CHARTER BY QUEBEC-EFFECT ON FEDERAL PROPOSALS RESPECTING INTEGRATION OF WELFARE PROGRAMS

Robert Lorne Stanfield: should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare from whom I have been seeking information for some time. Does the rejection of the federal package on constitutional reform imply the automatic cancellation of the proposals of the federal government with regard to the integration of federal and provincial welfare programs? In other words,
are these still regarded as a package in the way the Prime Minister indicated earlier in the House they were?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated to the Leader of the Opposition on several occasions, I have had a number of meetings with provincial welfare ministers on the question of the co-ordination and integration of federal and provincial social welfare policies. This has been outside the constitutional context, and many of the conclusions which we are in the process of reaching will, I hope, be implemented.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Then am I correct in understanding that the proposals which the Minister of National Health and Welfare has made in no way depend upon agreement in connection with the constitutional reform package?


John Carr Munro: No, that is not what I said. I said co-ordination would go on in any event in many of the areas in which we hope to achieve co-ordination. In some of the areas which involve constitutional implications nothing has been resolved, and nothing will be resolved until the government has made a decision with respect to them.



REJECTION OF CHARTER BY QUEBEC-CONTINUATION OF PROCESS OF REVISION

Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, can the Acting Prime Minister assure the House that the process of constitutional renovation will not be abandoned because of the Quebec veto of the constitutional charter?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government does wish to have the Canadian constitution brought to Canada and will be very happy to continue the discussions. However, I think at the present time there is a special responsibility on the Prime Minister of Quebec, who has stated that he would like further clarification of certain of the proposals that were agreed upon in Victoria, to take the initiative and bring these points of dissent to the attention of the other parties.



REJECTION OF CHARTER BY QUEBEC-DISCUSSIONS TO FIND COMMON MEETING GROUND

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


Mr. Andre Forfin (Lotbiniere):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister.
In view of the position taken by the government of Quebec, is the possibility of discussions between the two levels of government in order to find grounds of agreement now under consideration?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this was a constitutional conference consisting

June 23, 1971

of the first ministers of all the provinces and the federal government, and this is the way we will continue to conduct these negotiations. There may be occasions when it is useful to have bilateral discussions between two provinces or between the federal government and a province, but these discussions must be agreeable to all the parties concerned.


André-Gilles Fortin: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
In the light of the news that the Quebec government is reportedly prepared to join in such bilateral agreements, in order to find common grounds for agreement, has the federal government been formally informed of such a request If so, has it agreed to it?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the only news we have from the province of Quebec is the statement made by the Prime Minister of Quebec from which I quoted a moment ago. The government of Canada would welcome any further views that the government of Quebec would like to put before the Prime Minister of Canada as chairman of the constitutional conference.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasiings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the first question the Leader of the Opposition asked the Acting Prime Minister. I jotted down the words of the Prime Minister because they impressed me. He said that the constitution is really of relatively little importance and he went on to say, "and therefore I think it will be perfectly satisfactory to continue on in the way we have been going for many years". Is it not evident to the House and to the country that the Prime Minister is perfectly satisfied to leave our constitution in the hands of the British Parliament, as the Leader of the Opposition suggested in his question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That, of course, is
argument.



PROPOSED CHARTER-FURTHER CLARIFICATION OF TERMS

Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary of the Acting Prime Minister.
Since the Prime Minister recently told the provinces that concurrence in the Victoria charter had to be reached within a specificied period or else much time would be required to revise the Canadian constitution, has the Canadian government changed its mind since then and is it prepared to invite the provinces in the near future to consider the ambiguities mentioned by the Premier of Quebec in order to be able to save the Canadian confederation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows very well, the decision to give another ten days to the governments that
Inquiries oj the Ministry
have been considering these proposals since February was one that was made collectively and not by the federal government alone. No government at that time asked for more time. The time was considered reasonable for the first ministers who had considered the same questions in February to consult their governments and see whether they were prepared to go along with the charter as it had been drafted. The position at the present time is that if the province of Quebec wants to have further clarification of the terms of the charter which were agreed to by all parties, not just by the federal government, then-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: They were not agreed to.


Mitchell William Sharp: They were agreed to by the first ministers to show to their respective cabinets.


Mr. Ricard:: That is not the same thing.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mitchell William Sharp: We are, therefore, waiting for the government of Quebec-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



REJECTION OF CHARTER BY ORDER-PREPARATION OF REPORT BY JOINT PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE

Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
I would like to know whether the minister, as a result of Quebec's rejection of the Victoria charter, will ask the joint Parliamentary Committee on Constitution to present a report on constitutional matters to Parliament or whether the government will merely ask that the committee be dissolved.


Mitchell William Sharp: The
activities of the committee are in its own hands, Mr. Speaker.



REQUEST FOR DEBATE ON PROPOSED CHARTER BEFORE SUMMER RECESS

Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to address a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister.
Since this constitutional issue is of extreme importance and as it is also of great interest to all members, would the hon. minister be willing to recommend to opposition parties a one-day debate on this matter before the 30th of June?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think that is something that would have to be agreed to by the various parties. But my understanding is that the time of the House is fully taken up with the matters now before it.
7294

June 23, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



REJECTION OF CHARTER BY QUEBEC-PRIORITY OF FURTHER DISCUSSIONS OVER OTHER PROBLEMS

Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister. The Acting Prime Minister spoke of further discussions and clarifications. Will these discussions and clarifications be carried on before or after dealing with the many other problems that the Prime Minister mentioned must be taken care of when he spoke of the constitutional question as being a "can of worms"?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I said, I am sure that if the Prime Minister of Quebec wants further clarification of the terms of the charter, we should respond positively.


Donald MacInnis: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair will recognize the hon. member but I would bring to the attention of the House that there are now five or six members with supplemen-taries and it may be that the whole question period will be devoted to this particular subject. However, that is a decision for hon. members themselves. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I go back to my original question and I have to do so by way of supplementary. What priority will the Acting Prime Minister give to the constitutional question, in view of the remarks made this morning at the press conference held by the Prime Minister at which he referred to the many other serious problems that the government had to take care of?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman will agree with the Prime Minister that there are many questions of urgent importance and that we should give attention to all of them.



REJECTION OF CHARTER BY QUEBEC-EXPIRY OF ESTABLISHED PROGRAMS (INTERIM ARRANGEMENTS) ACT IN 1972-NEGOTIATIONS WITH PROVINCES

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the issue at the moment, with respect to the constitution, seems to be over the question of social security measures, and in view of the fact that this is also what is involved in the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act which expires one year from now, can the Acting Prime Minister say whether negotiations are under way with regard to the provisions of that act?


Mitchell William Sharp: Not yet, Mr. Speaker.



PROPOSED CHARTER-EXTENSION OF DATE FOR ACCEPTANCE

Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister a supplementary
question. Does the termination date of June 28 still stand or will it be extended?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, the time stands as of the 28th.



ALLEGED SUGGESTION AT CONFERENCE THAT DISCUSSIONS BE SUSPENDED IF CHARTER VETOED

Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The Prime Minister's closing and, some now say, unfortunate remarks at Victoria have generated considerable speculation that some of the provinces did suggest that should there be a veto further constitutional discussions should be put aside. Was this position formally put and recorded at the Victoria meeting?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the only decisions, I believe, that were formally agreed to were those that are contained in the recommended charter and in the communique that was issued at the time. It was then agreed that, after a period of three years, a decision should be made on these proposals by June 28 by the Prime Ministers once they had consulted their respective governments.



REJECTION OF CHARTER BY QUEBEC-POSITION RESPECTING AMENDMENT

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the Acting Prime Minister has admitted-and of course we all agree-that the agreement has been vetoed, does this not put us in the position, and is it not the policy of the government, that the question of changing the constitution remains, and will remain until there is agreement to do otherwise, with the imperial Parliament?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, until we bring the British North America Act back home, that is obviously the case.



STUDY OF CULTURE BY DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE

David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether his department is conducting a study called Youth Cultural Study, 1971, under which 200 young people have been asked secretly to collect highly personal information about other young people.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, my department is conducting such a youth cultural study. The rest of the remarks of the hon. member are incorrect, as is the article on which he has founded his question. There is nothing secret about what they are doing.

June 23, 1971


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, when the survey is being conducted are the people of whom questions are asked told the questions are in respect of a survey being conducted by the minister's department?


John Carr Munro: Mir. Speaker, those attending the seminar held at the inauguration of the study consisted of team leaders, 32 in number, who were all graduate students, mostly graduates in sociology. They were brought to Ottawa and told that the students they had in their teams to conduct the survey should let it be known that they were not peeping toms, that they were not conducting something in secret and that they should identify themselves.



STUDY OF CULTURE BY DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the very strange stories associated with this project will the minister undertake to make a statement to the House on Monday or perhaps on Friday in order that we may know what is really going on? It seems that the Prime Minister, who has been trying to get the government out of the nation's bedrooms, is now trying to get it into the bathrooms and the haylofts.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



STUDY OF CULTURE BY DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE-FINGERPRINTING OF EMPLOYEES

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask this question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare although perhaps it should be directed to the Solicitor General. It has to do with the survey being conducted by the government. Has the government changed its security practices because of this survey and are summer employees now being fingerprinted? Has the RCMP been given such instructions?


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker, there is no fingerprinting or anything of that type involved in this study.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carr Munro: I am not aware of this having taken place although I can speak only in reference to this study.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, just to clear the air, could the minister assure us that no young person being employed by the government in this or any other government sponsored service is being fingerprinted?


John Carr Munro: I can speak only for this particular study.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: I am not aware of this having taken place, in reference to this study, nor am I aware of it having
Inquiries of the Ministry
gone on in respect of any other studies that have been conducted where youth are involved.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister to undertake to make a statement to the House in respect of how this project is being carried on.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, perhaps as the result of intelligent questions from hon. members opposite, for which the hon. member is not noted-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carr Munro: -I could give definitive information.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have a supplementary question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Champlain.



AIR CANADA


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.
Is he aware of Air Canada's intention to discontinue its air service at Trois-Rivieres and, if so, does he intend to intervene personally in order to prevent this?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have been advised in the normal way of the intention of Air Canada. As for interventions, they can only come at the appropriate time, which would be following a decision by the Canadian Transport Commission. That decision can only be taken after every prescribed step has been taken, that is, submissions as to public reaction and the like. If the ultimate decision is not satisfactory to certain parties, as I recall it they have the right of appeal to the minister.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport.
Could he tell the House whether the municipal or regional authorities in Trois-Rivieres have made representations to him with regard to that decision?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker. I will be glad to check whether anything has come in within the last day or two, but certainly it has not in recent times.

June 23, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE



ALLEGED USE AS STRIKEBREAKERS AGAINST SYDNEY STEELWORKERS

Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General but because of the urgency of the matter may I direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. Has the Solicitor General been made aware of the fact that RCMP officers were used as investigators or strike-breakers, if you will, by the Attorney General of Nova Scotia against steelworkers at Sydney, and that they were required to visit the homes of workers to interrogate them as to their involvement in what was only a minor labour dispute which already has been settled by normal procedure? If so, what action has the Solicitor General taken to obtain full details on this very serious matter?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will draw this question to the attention of the Solicitor General who will be in the House on Friday, I believe.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, will the Solicitor General make certain that the Attorney General of Nova Scotia is not allowed to use the RCMP in his anti-labour vendettas in the future, which can only do substantial damage to the good reputation of the RCMP; and will he report to the House as soon as possible about these shameful Gestapo tactics?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
# * *



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State when the House can expect a policy statement about the recommendations in volume 4 of the report of the B and B Commission, in view of the representations made by various ethnic organizations?


Gérard Pelletier: The matter is before the cabinet, Mr. Speaker, and there should not be undue delay.



ALLEGED PAYMENTS BY LE DAIN COMMISSION TO PERSONS TO USE TAXIS, SMOKE MARIJUANA AND DRINK ALCOHOL

Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the Le Dain commission on the non-mediCal use of drugs paying people at the rate of $20 per session, or per day, in Ottawa to travel to and from home
by taxi, smoke marijuana and drink alcohol and the like? Has the minister knowledge whether this is correct? and, if it is, could he inform us whether public funds are being used?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I very much doubt whether such reckless charges can be substantiated. As to the allocation of the Le Dain commission funds during the conducting of its study, I do not know the precise details in respect of transportation costs, and so on, but this is a matter I could look into.


Frank Howard: Perhaps I could bring to the attention of the minister a newspaper article which purports to disclose this to be a fact. The newspaper is-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Frank Howard: Has the minister reprimanded the editor of the newspaper in this regard?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Carr Munro: He should reprimand you.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order for the purpose of clarification. I do not object to the statement made by the minister, if I heard him correctly, but I wish he would make it on his feet, in public, in order that I might deal with it. Did I understand the minister to say that he would reprimand me?


John Carr Munro: How would anyone dare do that?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Simcoe North. We are running short of time. Is the hon. member rising on a question of privilege?


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate that perhaps the minister is a little gutless in saying it from his seat and not on his feet.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Simcoe North has the floor. I seek the co-operation of hon. members. There are about six minutes remaining before the end of the question period. Obviously, many members will not have time to ask their questions if we do not move a little more quickly.



SUGGESTED PROGRAM TO EXPEDITE GRADUATION OF QUALIFIED PHYSICIANS

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In light of the fact that Canada is experiencing a drastic shortage of qualified physicians

June 23, 1971

and has a much higher patient-doctor ratio than the United States, can the minister tell the House if any steps will be taken in conjunction with the provincial departments of health to follow the program announced recently by the University of Miami which will graduate exceptional PhD graduates as qualified physicians in two rather than four years?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the premise of the hon. member's question. I think he would agree that the doctor-patient ratio in Canada is one of the best in the world. So far as any technique we can work out with the provinces is concerned to increase medical and paramedical manpower in Canada by shortening the educational term or by some other device, we have been looking into this matter for some time.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, does the minister know what the figures are, because he has made a statement that is completely incorrect?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I respectfully suggest to the hon. member that this kind of question should normally be placed on the order paper. The hon. member is inviting the minister to give statistics. I do not think this is the kind of question which should be asked at this time.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Would the minister advise if a revised family income security plan was presented to the provinces and, if so, when he will be presenting it to Parliament?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, various revisions have been considered. As I indicated to the hon. member in answer to previous questions, these revisions have been discussed with the provinces but nothing final has been determined with regard to them. I expect to have further meetings with the provinces during the summer.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, would the minister advise whether the government has decided to remove the $10,000 ceiling in respect of the proposed family income security plan?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, when I answered a similar question by the hon. member a month or two ago I indicated that the government was looking at this arbitrary cut-off at $10,000 because we are satisfied it does create certain inequities and we expect this particular feature will be changed.
Inquiries of the Ministry TRANSPORT



TRANSFER OF TRENT VALLEY CANAL SYSTEM TO DEPARTMENT OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Could the minister advise the House if he has already transferred the Trent Valley canal system to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and, if not, will he do so very soon so this beautiful area can be made into a national park with the least possible delay?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No
and yes, Mr. Speaker.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, would the minister assure the House-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar.



ACCESS FOR CANADIAN GRAIN FOLLOWING BRITISH ENTRY INTO EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the fact that the British government in its negotiations with the Common Market countries has now reached agreement to ensure that a guaranteed amount of New Zealand dairy products will enter that market, can the minister tell the House if negotiations are continuing or have been consistently carried on to guarantee access of some quantity of Canadian grain?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, in the various conversations which were held with the United Kingdom in connection with these negotiations it was clear they would undertake only a fairly limited commitment with regard to securing access. This matter has been referred to by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. No firm commitment on levels has been made in relation to grain.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, what I really asked the minister, and what I hope he can tell us, is whether representations and negotiations are continuing with the United Kingdom government in this regard?


Otto Emil Lang: In the normal course of our relationships we are in constant touch with them in connection with these issues.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As a result of last evening's convincing victory by the MPs all-star ball team over the Press Gallery ball team, would the Minister of National Health and Welfare, through the amateur sport and fitness directorate,

June 23, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
give serious consideration to sponsoring the MPs all-star ball team and the Press Gallery team on a cross-Canada tour so that the MPs all-star ball team could defeat the Press Gallery ball team in all provinces of Canada, thereby contributing to national unity?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Put it under the Opportunities for Youth program.


John Mercer Reid: I thought of that.



BAY OF FUNDY TIDES-REVIEW OF PROGRAMMING BOARD'S REPORT-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, this question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Would the minister give consideration to making a statement in the House before the summer recess on the status of negotiations between officials of his department and officials of the governments of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick concerning the terms of reference leading to a re-examination of the programming board's report in 1969 on Fundy power?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, fairly recently I answered a written question on this matter to the effect that we still had not received a reply from the province of Nova Scotia in regard to continuing the studies.


Robert Carman Coates: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Premier of Nova Scotia has said he is not satisfied with the terms of reference proposed by the federal government, would the minister give consideration to reinstituting negotiations between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and his officials so we can obtain an agreement and go forward with this re-examination that is so vitally important to the area and to Fundy power?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, without admitting the premise of the hon. member's suggestion, I would be very glad to consider it although I am not aware that Nova Scotia is not satisfied with the terms of reference, only that that province has not yet replied.



AIR CANADA


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport if he will
examine the evidence presented yesterday to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications by the chairman and president of Air Canada, from which it would appear that there are certain discriminatory practices taking place in Air Canada in respect of unilingual French Canadians and unilingual English Canadians, and will the minister report back to the House?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to look at the testimony and if as a result of so doing I find there is some matter on which I can elaborate to the House I shall be glad to do so.



CRITICISM OF REGIONAL AIR POLICY BY CHAIRMAN-REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, will the minister also clarify the regional air policy before the end of the session, since this policy has been criticized quite openly and singularly by the chairman, so that Air Canada will conduct its responsibilities in a proper way in the Maritimes?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I do not know why the chairman would take that attitude. Without questioning the hon. member's statement, I should say I have not seen these comments in writing but I shall be glad to look at them.



INDUSTRY


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce but in his absence I shall direct it to the Acting Prime Minister.
Despite federal measures, Japanese imports are increasingly threatening the textile industry. Could the minister tell the House if the Textile and Clothing Board charged with the application of the new policy of the government has brought in a report? If so, what steps are recommended by the Board?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems that such a question was raised just a few days ago. Anyhow, the minister concerned will be able to reply in due time to the hon. member.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY CARR REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS-REQUEST FOR DEBATE

Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Fronlenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister assure the House that no action will be taken on the inflation-producing recommendations of the William Carr and Associates

June 23, 1971

report tabled in the House, which call for increases in future tolls on the St. Lawrence seaway, and that this House and the appropriate committee will be given an opportunity to debate this nationally important subject?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that the Carr report was tabled on the basis of having full discussion, and to the extent that we want the discussion to be complete that would obviously involve the members of this House.


Inquiries of the Ministry MANPOWER



DIRECTIVE TO CENTRES THAT STATISTICS ON STUDENT EMPLOYMENT NOT BE RELEASED

['Yes, Mr. Speaker. The attack on the tanker Coral Sea as it was entering the Red Sea on June 11 was a deplorable act of interference with civilian maritime traffic. The Canadian government fully supports the position declared by the Secretary General of the United Nations that such acts against civilian shipping are to be condemned as an inadmissible threat to maritime communications between nations.']
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Has he had an opportunity to look into the statement made by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate regarding the directives that have been forwarded to manpower offices preventing their releasing information regarding student placement?



Francis Andrew Brewin: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is he now in a position to answer the question I put to him yesterday about the attack on a Liberian tanker in the Strait of Bab El-Mandeb?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The attack on the tanker Coral Sea as it was entering the Red Sea on June 11 was a deplorable act of interference with civilian maritime traffic. The Canadian government fully supports the position declared by the Secretary General of the United Nations that such acts against civilian shipping are to be condemned as an inadmissible threat to maritime communications between nations.



POST OFFICE


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General.
It has been reported that the government and the union representing the "Lapalme boys" are about to arrive at a settlement which would be satisfactory to the parties involved. I should like to know whether this report is accurate and what are the conditions of such a settlement.


Mr. Speaker:: The question should not be worded in that manner. The hon. member is inviting the minister to confirm or deny a rumour or a report. We may assume the question has been put directly. The minister might reply.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that I have had private meetings with Messrs. Parent and Pepin of the CNTU, upon their request. I answered a great number of questions on mail transport services in Montreal and on previous offers of the government and of the CNTU.


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The directive issued repeated a directive of a year ago indicating that because of difficulties in the use of the statistics available in individual student manpower offices, the manpower offices should indicate to people requesting information the reasons why it is not reliable for any purpose that might be suggested, that it does not indicate anything more than the activity in the office and is really used only for that purpose. Needless to say, if anyone had a reason for needing the information for some useful purpose, we would be glad to obtain it for them.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister will now undertake to give the assurance that, subject to the risk that these people will have to take, a directive will now go out to manpower offices to the effect that this information is available?


Otto Emil Lang: The difficulty is that it is not a risk to the user of the information but, rather, a risk of misinformation that is based upon and appears to be connected with the information. What we will be doing, as we did last year, is to report at the conclusion of the program, as a result of a full study of it, giving a full picture of the registrations, the record of placement and also the general student employment situation in the summer.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingaie):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister specifically, in respect of student offices, whether weekly or monthly reports are made so that the public and the press can obtain some information even in a managed way, on the extent of the student unemployment problem?


Otto Emil Lang: I receive regular reports on the extent of registrations and placements across the country as an indication of the activity in the offices. For instance, the last one I saw showed that the figures for both placements and registrations were about, say 50 per cent ahead of last year: These comparisons are very difficult to make and many factors enter into them, but I will certainly consider providing this kind of information on a regular basis.


John Howard Lundrigan: Will the minister accept the recommendation made to him today that a corrected directive be issued so that we can obtain this kind of information and so that the general public and the elected representa-

June 23, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
tives of the people are given this dimension of the unemployment problem which is being covered up, because the minister knows that the unemployment problem among students-*


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that it took the Prime Minister of our country to advise an unemployed man in Bramalea in southern Ontario of the job vacancies in Thompson, Manitoba, would the minister do everything in his power to ensure that manpower offices are made aware of the tremendous job vacancies in that area?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-RECONSIDERATION OF GRANT TO NEWSPAPER, &quot;GEORGIA STRAIGHT&quot;

Mr. Tom H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond-Delia):: My
question regarding the Opportunities for Youth program is directed to the Secretary of State. Will the minister reconsider the advisability of granting $15,000 to the Vancouver underground newspaper, Georgia Straight?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is a representation and the hon. member has to assume that it will be taken into consideration by the minister.


Thomas Henry Goode: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I rephrase my question? Has the government considered turning down this application?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, all projects under the Opportunities for Youth program are under constant review. That one has since been submitted to the same examination, it has even been recognized, and the decision concerning the support that was to be given to that newspaper, whose character does not meet the criteria, has been reversed; now we must admit that was an error to have supported it in the first place.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: My question is for the
Minister of National Health and Welfare. To avoid his time being taken up by questions in the House based on misinformation, would he recommend to his colleague, the Secretary of State, that a grant not be made to the underground newspaper which published the report on which the question of the hon. member for Winnipeg North was based?



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-CONSIDERATION OF MEMBER'S VIEWS BEFORE APPROVING PROJECTS

Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State. I wonder whether, in his review of projects, the Secretary of State would allow the elected representatives of the people to make some input into subsequent decisions?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, hon. members did not hesitate-and I am in a good position to know it-to make through their advice and counsel a generous contribution which has always been considered.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-APPROVAL BY BRITISH COLUMBIA OF PROJECTS WITHIN PROVINCE

['Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am very happy that the House did give such quick and unanimous approval, thereby showing the support of all members of the House for the position that I and the government have been taking.']
Mark Willson Rose: I have a question for the Secretary of State. The minister of citizenship, during the debate on this issue the other day, indicated that there had been provincial approval of the various Opportunities for Youth projects. This statement has been denied by the premier of British Columbia, Mr. W. A. C. Bennett. Would the minister please investigate whether or not the projects approved in B.C. did in fact have provincial approval?



Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he will, in the near future, be transmitting to the Secretary of State of the United States a copy of the third report of the special committee on environmental pollution, and indicate that this House has concurred in its recommendations.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am very happy that the House did give such quick and unanimous approval, thereby showing the support of all members of the House for the position that I and the government have been taking.



TRANSPORT


Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the discussions that have been going on for the best part
[Mr. Lundrigan.l
June 23, 1971

of a year between the minister, his officials, officials of the Canadian Transport Commission, and the premiers and their officials from western Canada with respect to the alleged discriminatory freight rates now in effect in the captive freight rate areas in the west, will the minister under motions report to the House before the summer adjournment as to what progress or determination has been arrived at with respect to this serious problem?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: would be pleased to do so if I expected that there would be definitive information by that time. My own feeling is that there will not. However, I can advise the House that just this week I received further representations from the province of Manitoba. Discussions with officials in Saskatchewan have been completed, and I assume that after discussions with Manitoba officials there will be meetings with officials of the province of Alberta. So I do not believe much would be accomplished by a statement at this time.



POST OFFICE


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Postmaster General. Now that he has obtained the approval of Parliament to increase first class postal rates in Canada commencing July 1 and again in January next, is it his intention to return to the six-day delivery of mail so that Canadians will receive the service to which they are entitled?


John Cole: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In accordance with a request made by the other side I would like to notify the House that the government will be laying on the table, not later than Friday, a proposed draft Order in Council relating to the new ministry of state for urban affairs and housing and a notice of motion relating thereto.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, June 22, consideration of the motion of Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance) that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government, the amendment thereto of Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West) (page 7229) and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Saltsman (page 7234).
The Budget-Mr. Blair
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe that when we adjourned yesterday the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) had the floor.


Mr. D. Gordon Blair (Grenville-Carlelon):: Mr. Speaker,
yesterday as I listened to the address of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) I was reminded of an editorial which appeared in one of the financial papers at the commencement of 1970. It was written at a time when the official opposition had decided to run in the wake of the well informed criticism of the white paper which was then developing.
The editorial gave credit to the official opposition for its political acumen in choosing the white paper as a target but raised a serious question by way of caution. It asked the official opposition and its leader what would happen if that target were removed. Of course, that is what has happened and we now see the sense of frustration, disappointment and confusion which shines through the comments which thus far the official opposition have made on this major budget proposal. They look like the mighty guns of Singapore which, when the battle was joined, were pointing the wrong way and firing at the wrong target.
There was a dichotomy in the address of the hon.
member for Edmonton West. He seemed unable to make up his mind whether to take credit for the good things which are disclosed in this budget or to retreat into the traditional opposition posture of criticizing everything which the government has proposed. And at the end of his remarks I regret to say that his attitude was unclear and the issue appeared to be unresolved in his mind. But as is so often the case, whatever may be said by the official spokesmen of the opposition they are disconcerted and undermined by their colleague, the distinguished member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees). He at least has recognized the wisdom of this budget. He has recognized its immense popularity. He has predicted an election. I understand from the press that he is wagering large amounts of a valuable fluid in support of his prediction. Perhaps the caution should be offered to him that the budget does not propose any reduction in the tax on spirits.
From the NDP we have had what might be expected to be their accustomed response. They must look askance at anything which is popular, at anything which relieves large sections of the population from taxation, and they have looked upon this budget with their accustomed attitude of moral disdain. A remarkable phrase was uttered by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) in his speech yesterday. He described the budget as being "a political budget beyond the point of decency." All of us know that the real translation of those words is that this is a popular budget beyond the reach of his ill-tempered criticism.
Against all the evidence, the NDP will continue to say that this is a budget which is oppressive against the little man in this country, and favours large interests. It is significant that in elaborating this argument yesterday the hon. member for Waterloo, as recorded at page 7231

June 23, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Blair
of Hansard, chose to make a comment about the impact of corporation taxes under the white paper and under the budget proposals. He made the observation that the increase in corporate taxation under the white paper was bound to be far greater than under the current budget proposals. But he failed to point out that more than 60 per cent of the increase in corporate tax envisaged by the white paper arose from the proposal to eliminate the differential tax rate from small corporations, and I suppose we are to take it from that that he and his party oppose this welcome measure of relief, this recognition of the practical problems of small companies.
I also think he could have given a complete picture by dealing fully with the impact of all the proposals in the white paper. The white paper discloses that had the concept of corporate integration with personal income been adopted, after a period of years the treasury would have lost something like $230 million of revenue-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Baloney!


Duncan Gordon Blair: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) says "Baloney," but he himself used these figures extensively to prove that there was going to be overtaxation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is right, overtaxation.


Duncan Gordon Blair: In any event, this was the amount of revenue which would have been foregone. This is the benefit that the white paper would have conferred upon corporations and their shareholders. I am suggesting that the budget proposals apply equally to benefit all sections of the population. I would not like to have the task of the NDP in attempting to prove to the people of Canada that, as they claim, this budget discriminates against little people, when more than one million are going to be removed from the tax rolls and 4,700,000 more will achieve significant tax reductions. In order to sell this bill of goods to the Canadian people they will require even more Waffle than they presently have in their party.
It is quite clear that we are going to be faced with a tedious semantic argument perhaps from both the opposition parties. The burden of this argument is that the budget proposals do not constitute tax reform. Mr. Speaker, we should consider this allegation carefully. How can we say that a budget that for the first time imposes a capital gains tax is not a major tax reform? How can we say that a budget that accomplishes an immense shifting of the burden of taxation from the low-income brackets is not a major tax reform? How can we say that a budget that for the first time recognizes the position of working wives and mothers by providing for child care deductions is not a major tax reform? How can we say that a budget which provides positive encouragement, as the hon. member for Waterloo himself admitted yesterday, for Canadian ownership is not a major tax reform?
How can we say this about a budget which cuts through the immense complexity of special rules applying to special corporations and their shareholders? How

can we say this about a budget which provides enlightened administrative procedures for which many people have been asking for years?
I think the judgment which will be made upon this budget is that it constitutes the most major reform in the philosophy of our tax structure and the thrust of tax policy since income tax was first introduced in Canada in 1917.


Mr. Paproski:: That was a bad bill.


Duncan Gordon Blair: I think the greatest significance of this budget is that it brings to a conclusion a period of almost ten years of unsettling discussion about tax reform. We should be clear about the origins of that discussion, Mr. Speaker. There are many people in the chamber and certainly many outside who will recall that this discussion commenced when the government of the day, of which some hon. gentlemen opposite were members, was unable to deal effectively with the problems of taxation arising from the distribution of surpluses of corporations. That government found itself unable to achieve a practical settlement of that problem, and the record is clear that the Carter commission was finally appointed in order to lift the burden of this responsibility from its back.
One of the most significant reforms envisaged by the present budget is a practicable, just and sensible solution of the problem of distribution of corporate surpluses.
An. hon. Member: Opportunities for waste!


An hon. Member:: The Bonaventurel


Duncan Gordon Blair: Once the royal commission was appointed the country was inexorably committed to a long discussion on tax reform. It was appointed in 1962, it reported in 1967 and since that time the sweeping and important report which it presented has been the focus of tax discussion in Canada. The real significance of the budget is that it brings this long and unsettling discussion to an end. We had reached a critical stage in Canada when many important decisions were being postponed, but now the air has been cleared. The budget proposals may not please everybody, but the element of uncertainty has been removed and the proposals themselves are capable of being understood and applied within the traditional structure of our Income Tax Act. Psychologically, this is the most important feature of the budget. Coupled with the incentives which will be given by way of tax relief and the positive assertion of government policy that the aim of the fiscal policy is to foster development and to encourage enterprise, we now provide a solid platform for unimpeded progress in this country.
I should add, Mr. Speaker, that there is another important policy still to be disclosed. I believe it is important for the government, at the earliest possible date, to make an announcement of its policy with regard to foreign ownership I observe that while this matter is outstanding some decisions are being postponed and some uncertainty is created.
June 23, 1971

In passing, we should note the positive measures which have been taken in this budget in a practical, nondiscriminatory and sensible way to encourage Canadian ownership of our businesses. These include the provision for the deduction of interest paid on money used to acquire shares in Canadian companies, the provision that 90 per cent of the assets of pension and similar funds provided by Canadians shall be invested in Canadian enterprises, the very sensible provisions made for the alteration of the withholding taxes, the provision regarding small companies where the favourable differential rate of taxation applies only to Canadian companies and the solution for distribution of surpluses which is available to Canadian companies.
I suggest that in this long process of discussion of tax policy, we in Parliament and the people of this country have learned a great deal about ourselves. We are essentially a pragmatic and practical people. It is quite obvious now that this nation does not find acceptable the grand, schematic proposals for the over-all alteration of established institutions. These may have great academic appeal, but in terms of our history and tradition it is quite clear that they do not appeal to the typical Canadian. I suppose one might say about the tax structure and the tax system that the decision of the majority of our countrymen is that they like better the devil they know than the devil unknown.
Another feature which develops out of this long discussion is a recognition of the diverse nature of our country which is really too big and too varied to be moved by one theory or one simplistic tax structure. As a consequence, I welcome, as do other hon. members, the fact that differential tax treatment will continue where necessary- where it is necessary, for example, to encourage development in outlying areas, where it is necessary to encourage development of the mining and petroleum industries. The budget also recognizes the special position of different types of corporations such as co-operatives and credit unions in which, as many hon. members know, I have had a lifelong interest.
In regard to all these changes which have been proposed I must say that it is impossible at this time to make comments on the immense draft bill which we have received. However, there are bound to be some areas of the bill which require clarification, and I hope that all members of the House will join in trying to produce the best bill possible so that our fellow citizens who are taxpayers will be able to apply a simple and well-worded law to their affairs.
There are other things about the budget which give me great personal satisfaction and which remove the pall which had been cast upon very deserving people in our country. I mention, for example, the decision not to subject personal residences to a capital gains tax. I also call attention to the change in the income tax rates which make it possible now to say that those people who during the great discussion were called the middle-income group and whose incomes were over $10,000 will not be subjected to higher absolute taxation. I have mentioned before the exceedingly important practical decision to deal with
The Budget-Mr. Blair
the troublesome question of the distribution of corporate surpluses.
The hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Kaplan) referred to some of the political consequences of the long investigative and deliberative process which went on, particularly in the consideration of the white paper. Speaking for myself, I cannot think of any national discussion which has been more intensive and more comprehensive. There will now be nobody who dares to say, as was said during the course of those discussions, that the government would not listen. In a sense, the new proposals represent a triumph of democracy. I am quite convinced they have been advanced as the result of important work done by the House of Commons Committee on Finance. We are all indebted to the members of that committee for their work and their report, because it undoubtedly provided the effective foundation for the budget.
Apart from these important income tax changes which in a sense have obscured other vital changes in the budget, I would like to comment very briefly on some of the changes made in tariffs, sales and excise taxes. I welcome the decision of the government to alter the tariff rates affecting the production of polyethylene, not only because of the support it will give to this important segment of the chemical industry, but because of the hope that it holds out for the petrochemical industry, in particular, of government interest, participation and cooperation in solving its many difficulties. These difficulties were expounded yesterday by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin). I am sure all members were as happy as I was to hear him again re-emphasize the recognition of the problems of the industry and his determination to assist in their solution.
The petrochemical industry deserves the support of this Parliament because it is one of the most technologically advanced industries in our country. We must keep abreast of this technology in order to prosper as a modern industrial society. The same comments can be made about the electronics industry which will be greatly assisted by the removal of the special 15 per cent excise tax which has applied to a wide range of consumer electronic products. In making this change, the government has not only responded to producing companies in the industry but to their unions. As is always the case when a mammoth tax deduction such as this is announced on budget night, some hardship and inconvenience can result. I know that there are many retailers who have an expensive inventory of electronic products upon which the tax has been paid. Many of these people are reasonably small businessmen and cannot afford any substantial loss.
I hope that two things will occur. I hope that the government will give consideration to their position and, more important, that the major producers in the electronics industry, who have for so long and so effectively urged this important reform, will not stand aside and let the burden of it be borne entirely by their retail distributors.

June 23, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Stanfield
As hon. members know, I represent a constituency containing both consumers and dairy producers. The removal of sales tax on margarine eliminates an anomaly in our law, it having been the only food product upon which sales tax was charged. It will be of immense benefit to consumers of margarine. However, I suggest that the effect of the change must be carefully watched. Under the leadership of this government great progress has been made in the current year in achieving greater stability in the dairy industry and in improving the financial returns to dairy producers. Notwithstanding this, they still face difficulties. I do not think they are in a position to absorb many reverses. If any momentary adverse effects occur as a result of this tax change, I hope that other measures will be taken to protect them so that the progress achieved this year will not be undone.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair). While he had quite strong praise of a general nature for the budget, it seemed that by the time he was through he was just as worried about some of the things it had done as he was pleased about some of its other measures. I can only sum it by saying that he thanked God the process was over, he hoped, and the results were not as bad as they may have been.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I hope the expression used by the hon. member, indicating that the discussion was over, does not mean it is the intention of the majority of this House to prevent further discussion on these matters. I am sure he did not mean that.
Today we are discussing two documents that are of vital concern to the Canadian people. Each one in its own way expresses the intentions or alleged intentions of the federal government in terms of economic policy. Each is an indication of what we can expect to happen or not happen in the future. Each indicates or purports to indicate the direction that the government expects and hopes the economy will go.
The tax amendment package is one such document. It purports to set forth the long-term policy proposals purporting to create an equitable and realistic tax framework within which the Canadian economy can grow and prosper. The tax reform package purports to be an expression of both the government's long-term economic predictions and its economic philosophy. It purports to tell us something about both the expectations and the goals of the government. After years of indecision and uncertainty, referred to with some emphasis by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, at least we are now being given what purports to be the government's blueprint for the future, although as I go along I will express some doubts about how much it really means as a blueprint for the future.
If the tax amendment proposals purport to give us a long-term idea of the government's intentions, the actual budget for the fiscal year which was announced last
Friday tells us what the immediate short-term approaches of the government are. In terms of the budget, we are no longer in the realm of intentions or possibilities some time in the future. We must never forget that intentions can change even if they are honestly stated. In terms of the budget, we are in the realm of the immediate. This is the government supposedly in action. The way in which the government now acts must surely tell us something more concrete about its real intentions than all the words in which those intentions are couched either by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) or by anybody else.
The so-called tax reform package is the government's purporting to tell us its future plans, but the budget is the government's acting out its plans in terms of the needs and contexts of the day. That is why in this debate we have to pay considerable attention to the budget for the current fiscal year as distinct from the proposals relating to 1972 and subsequent years. The budget is vitally important both for what it does and does not do to help the economy now. It is also very important in terms of shedding some light on the real, as opposed to the pretended, score sheet of this government.
Let me say immediately that there are some things which I welcome and there are others to which I simply take no objection. I certainly favour the elimination of the 3 per cent surtax. We on this side of the House have been calling for its removal for the past year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: 
Duncan Gordon Blair: Harm which could be mitigated.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It could be mitigated. I said it might do harm in certain circumstances, as the hon. member him-

June 23, 1971

self said a few minutes ago, to people who are caught holding certain inventories. But I am not quarrelling with these proposals to reduce excise tax, nor am I intent on opposing other similar minor items in the budget.
I suppose one could call the removal of the tax on margarine a confusion of products, as it is obviously an attempt to "butter up" consumers. An inveterate eater of margarine might save up to 25 cents a week, assuming he were to dispose of close to a pound a day. I can only assume that the government has concluded that the abolition of this tax will not have much effect on our butter producers; it certainly will not do much to help consumers or lower the cost of living.
The total tax relief to be envisaged for individual Canadians for the balance of the year amounts to some $135 million of which no less than $90 million is accounted for by the removal of a surtax which was supposed to have been removed on December 31, 1970, in any event. In other words, the real income tax reduction for Canadians with lower incomes and older Canadians amounts to some $45 million, about one-third of one per cent of the budget, a paltry and perhaps even an insulting amount, the equivalent of $2 a year for each Canadian. As for other Canadian taxpayers generally, they are not to be given any real tax relief in spite of the attempt by the government to conjure up such an illusion. It is true the corporations are expected to pay some $255 million less in corporate income tax this fiscal year than they did in the last. In other words, the revenue from corporate income tax will be down by about 10 per cent-about 7 per cent more than is accounted for by the removal of the surtax. I presume this is likely to be the result of an anticipated drop in corporate profits during the year.


Mr. Benson:: They pay taxes in the current year on last year's profits.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: For individual taxpayers the results are different. According to the government's figures, personal income tax will be up by $838 million during the present fiscal year which ends on March 31, 1972. This represents an over-all increase of 13 per cent in tax paid by individuals in the present fiscal year as compared with the fiscal year ended March 31 last. In other words, while the minister pretends to be reducing personal income tax by taking off the 3 per cent surtax, he will really be collecting 13 per cent more from personal income tax payers.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


George Harris Hees: That is in the fine print.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is the information the minister gave out.


Edgar John Benson: More taxpayers.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is not necessarily a tax reduction. If the minister had not changed the tax rate to the extent he has, he would have collected another $255 million this year in addition to what he intends to take under his present proposals.
The Budget-Mr. Stanfield
Somebody, somewhere, has called this an expansionary budget. Certainly the taxes collected from individual taxpayers will expand, but compared with the needs of this country in terms of unemployment and the urgency of stimulating the economy this budget is worse than ineffective, it is simply irrelevant.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The tax reductions are not sufficient to make any impact. The Minister of Finance seems to think a little dab will do it. A little dab may be all right for his hair, it may be all right for my hair, but it is not good enough for the economy of the country in the year 1971.
What I find interesting in all this talk about expansion is the alacrity with which the government has seized upon the adjective "expansionary". They have come to love the word. I find this all the more interesting because up to now the minister has been telling the Canadian people that the economy is already expanding satisfactorily. There is no need, he said, for special measures to get the economy moving again; there is no need for any special concern.
If that is indeed the case, I must ask the Minister of Finance why he chose to make even these few small gestures to stimulate the economy. And having made them, why is he now so proud of them? If these measures were not required last December, why are they considered necessary now? The minister has been saying for months that things have been going well. I suggest he is taking action now because he knows perfectly well in his heart that the economy is not moving forward satisfactorily in terms of reducing unemployment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I would refer the Minister of Finance to a paper put out recently by the Institute of Quantitative Analysis of Social and Economic Policy, an institution, part of the University of Toronto, which the Minister of Finance mentioned when talking a few days ago about agencies in Canada which made short-term economic forecasts. The reference is a paper entitled "Policy options for high employment without inflation." In it we are told that even if the gross national product of Canada should increase by 5 per cent this year, as predicted in the paper, it would still mean a decline in unemployment of only one-quarter of one per cent.
This is exactly the point I have been trying to drum into the head of the Minister of Finance for months. The Economic Council of Canada has been telling us for years we need real growth of that order just to enable us to hold our own against further increases in the rate of unemployment. I wonder whether the minister has taken that forecast into consideration. It is a question we may well ask. I suggest that if the minister and the government had really thought the economy was moving forward satisfactorily, not only would they not have lowered tax rates-and I accept here help for low-income people because even people with hearts as cold as the heart of this government would have moved to do something for the low-income people anyway

but they would

June 23, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Stanfield
not be describing this as a policy of expansion. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot say at one and the same time that their past policies have worked and also claim that there is need for expansion at the present time. At least, they cannot say it and expect to be believed.
How are we to believe that the Minister of Finance is any more accurate about the taxes he proposes to collect in 1972 and 1973, if by any disaster it is still his responsibility then, than he has been in his dismally inaccurate forecasts for the six months just past? Where is the minister's consistency of approach? On the one hand he tells us that he has to budget frequently, perhaps several times a year, to deal realistically with changing conditions. On the other hand he simultaneously presents a future budget revenue package that he characterizes as historic and lasting.
Are we to take it from this that he has abandoned the flexibility that has thus far been his excuse for bungling? Of course not, Mr. Speaker. This Minister of Finance would not abandon anything for an excuse like that. Is it not more likely that six months from now he intends to depart from the proposed package as dramatically as the package itself departs from the proposals in his white paper of 1969?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I think he should depart altogether.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That would save a lot of problems. Let us just look at the record, Mr. Speaker. For the past few months the minister has been telling the House and trying to convince the Canadian people that he has not really been defending the proposals in his white paper. "Who me?", asks the minister. "I am just a simple country boy trying to get a dialogue going. Far be it for me to try to bulldoze the Canadian people into any particular kind of tax reform. No, Sir!"
This is the image that the minister has been trying to project during the last three months and he has been doing so for a very good reason. He has come to know very well, to realize at last-indeed, he has known this for a few months now-that there is not the ghost of a chance of the Canadian people going along with many of the original proposals in his white paper. This, Mr. Speaker, is the new Minister of Finance, a man who is reasonable and friendly, like a cocker spaniel. Why, you can almost see him wagging his tail. But the minister was not always like this. When the white paper was tabled 18 months ago it was the proud father who faced us then, but who quickly turned into a pretty fierce watchdog defending every inch of terrain from the critics he dismissed as mere upstarts and as, generally speaking, representatives of large interests. The minister now blandly announces that he will not, of course, do anything to hurt the small business corporations. He is going to retain the concessions that the white paper was going to abolish.
Listen to what the minister said at an earlier time, Mr. Speaker. According to the Minister, in 1967 over 450,000
Canadians paid tax on their business profits at personal rates because they were unincorporated. This group included about 50,000 doctors, lawyers and other professionals who are barred from incorporating. However, said the minister, this left 400,000 other businessmen who did not get any benefit from the low corporate tax rate- "These, I believe, are the real small businesses in Canada". This was one of the reasons the minister refused to sanction anything even approaching the measure he is now putting forward protecting a lower corporate tax rate for incorporated businesses below a certain size, and was his defence then for increasing taxes on small corporations. He delivered that speech in tones as convincing as he could make them.
Has the minister changed his mind since then? He now accepts what he then rejected and rejects what he accepted.


Mr. Crouse:: Think about it, Ben; it will come to you.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Has the minister really changed his mind?


Edgar John Benson: Sure.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: He has not told us so. Does he really
intend to stick to these changes, to his present recommendations, if the government should-God forbid-win another election? Who can tell, Mr. Speaker? For the time being the Minister of Finance has swallowed his
own principles, if that is what they were.


An hon. Member:: This is something better.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Hon. members opposite were just as pleased with the white paper when it was first brought in as they are pleased with this budget. I can readily understand why hon. members are so happy. When a fellow like the Minister of Finance has been banging their heads against the wall for a year and a half, it must feel pretty good when he stops.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That was not the only principle that he shunted aside; there were a host of others. There was the five-year revaluation tax on widely held shares; he defended that in eloquent terms. There was the full income tax rate generally applied to capital gains with the exception of widely held shares. There was the extension of this tax to the family home and all the other proposals that he first adopted as his own, only to discard them reluctantly as the months and years wore on.
Why did the minister do this, Mr. Speaker? I think the answer is pretty simple: He did it because he finally realized that politically there was nothing to gain and everything to lose. He did it not because he had been convinced by the opposition or by anybody else that what he was proposing was wrong; he did it because he realized that the proposals were unpopular. Why did the chicken cross the road, Mr. Speaker? Ask the Minister of Finance.

June 23, 1971

Let us take another example. The minister grandly announced on Friday the death of death duties as far as the federal government was concerned. But listen to what the same minister said on February 13, 1969, not very long before the white paper on tax reform was introduced:
More than $200 million a year is raised through the estate tax and provincial succession duties.
Any mistakes in grammar can be attributed to the minister and not me, because I am trying to read the quotation faithfully. It continues as follows:
Some critics might argue that we could do away with this kind of tax if governments tightened their belts and reduced spending by this amount. Our conclusion is that the government feels that the estate tax is a fair and equitable part of our total tax system regardless of the revenues we need.
That was said by the Minister of Finance a few months before he introduced his white paper on tax reform.


Edgar John Benson: There is no change.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Could there be anything clearer than that-anything, that is, other than the decision of the very same minister and the government to do away with the tax as announced last Friday? There is consistency for you! In 1969 before the introduction of the white paper-and the government must have had a little bit of advice about tax reforms-the minister put the country through a lot of turmoil and trouble by an increase in estate taxes in an attempt to reduce the tax on very small estates. Now, with great fanfare the minister announces its abolition, also for the very best of reasons.
Then there is the affair of the 3 per cent surtax on personal and corporate taxes. We had the Minister of Finance assuring us in the beginning that this was a temporary measure and would disappear by the end of last year. We had the firm assurance of the minister in this regard. Last December we had the same minister tell us in urgent tones that any move to abolish the surtax was sure to bring on inflation. He took up quite a bit of time in the House telling us about the surtax situation.


An hon. Member:: The minister is leaving; he can't take it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I think he can take it and I would not make that charge against him. I want to emphasize in particular that at the very time the Minister of Finance was saying the 3 per cent tax could not be removed because it was inflationary, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) went into another room and he said inflation was licked. Six months later the minister comes back with a flourish and abolishes the 3 per cent surtax at a time when inflation is not licked and, according to his own statement, the economy is moving forward faster than ever. There is something here that smells, and it is not a rose.


Edgar John Benson: That is your locker-room.
The Budget-Mr. Stanfield


Robert Lorne Stanfield: My hon. friend certainly has a locker-room smell. One just has to look at the way he retreated from the white paper to know how it smelled to him. So much for integrity!
Let us look more closely at predictions. On December 12, 1968, the minister assured this House there would be a balanced budget. It turned out to be a deficit of some $300 million. In 1969, before the budget, the minister gave an assurance that unemployment was declining. In December, 1970, when introducing his budget the Minister of Finance said among other things that employment was rising in Canada and unemployment on a seasonally adjusted basis appeared to be falling. That was in December of 1970, and on the same day on the television program "Encounter" the minister said:
The trend will be downward in unemployment in Canada seasonally adjusted through next year.
On the same day the minister said he was willing to bet that unemployment on a seasonally adjusted basis would progressively decline throughout 1971.


Edgar John Benson: I still do.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Not quite two months later, on the program "Question Period" on January 31 the minister said:
Our trend is down and I think our trend will continue downwards in 1971.
On February 25 he was predicting a mid-year economic upturn, and on March 11 he told us:
I believe that in the fiscal year 1971-72 we will find a decline in seasonally adjusted unemployment.
I notice that each time he speaks the minister shows certain tendencies. He tends to put off the promised fall in seasonally adjusted unemployment to a little later. First of all this fall in unemployment was supposed to take place throughout the year 1971, then it was supposed to take place by mid-year, and finally the minister was talking about the fiscal year 1971-72 which we have just started. He said all this in spite of the fact we know the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate of unemployment was higher in May than the rate for last January.


Edgar John Benson: By one-tenth of one per cent.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Yes, by one-tenth of one per cent.


Edgar John Benson: It was .6 per cent lower than September.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister is now saying this does not amount to anything more than one-tenth of one per cent, but how could anybody in Canada take this minister or his predictions seriously? How can we give him any more credit in respect of his predictions for the future than he deserves in regard to the past?


Donald MacInnis: Because he can live on $30 a week.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: No matter how hard they try, the gentlemen of this government cannot retain their credibility for long on this issue. The magnitude of the credibility gap of this government is enormous. It makes the Grand

June 23, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Stanfield
Canyon look like a hairline crack. So much for cracks about hairlines. The new heights of arrogance and complacency displayed by this government make the Rocky Mountains look like a fluctuation. It seems that we now have before us a new "incredible" Canadian.
The minister has had a great deal of difficulty with his predictions in respect of the financial position of the government. I have mentioned the 1968-69 experience. On March 12 of 1970 the minister forecast a budget surplus in the order of $300 million.


Edgar John Benson: There were four changes after that.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: There were four changes, but last December that had become a deficit forecast of $320 million, and last Friday it was a deficit of some $420 million. This is a mere error of $720 million since the first prediction.


Edgar John Benson: That is not true.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: 
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: 
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We might well have been talking to the wind. The results are before us. They show a government which on this issue is still incapable of listening either to others or to the economic indicators it has in front of it. They show a government that is as stubborn and as blind as ever on this issue. They show a government that refuses to listen and refuses to act in any meaningful way to get the economy rolling again. How, one might ask, does this square with the tax reform legislation this same government has brought in?
Here we have a government that is in full retreat all along the line. Here we have a government which gave the appearance of having listened to reason. This is a government of humility, of sweet reason, a government which has learned from dialogue and which has responded to public opinion. Mr. Speaker, I do not have to go over the catalogue of retreat in the white paper. I think the disappearance of these things is good. We accept these changes and in association with others accept a considerable proportion of credit for having brought forward the suggestions and for having brought about the changes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 23, 1971


Edgar John Benson: Why did all your members abstain from voting in the committee?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I must admit, however, that certain suspicions remain. It is true the government has been forced to retreat, but it has retreated in disorder. The Minister of Finance's rather peevish remarks last Friday night about the failure to integrate corporation taxes were an indication of this. Everybody was at fault but the government. The government knows best but nobody was willing to listen, complained the minister. That is an old song with this government. The difference is that on this occasion the government pretends to have listened to the people and changed its intentions. Or has it merely changed its tactics?
I would remind this House that unlike the budget for the current year the tax package is really nothing but an expression of intentions under which the government, virtually at will, can change the rates of tax. Specifically, they can be changed at any time by the simple device of adding a surtax, which this government knows so well how to do. Even that may not be necessary.
Mr. Speaker, one can have no confidence at all that the rates set forth in the minister's proposals for 1972, 1973 and so on will in fact be the rates of tax paid by the Canadian people. One could have no confidence at all in this, that is, if this government continues to hold office. There just is no credibility there in view of past performance. The government promises to lower taxes for most people in 1972 and after that. What does this mean in fact? It is true that under these proposals for the year 1972, for example, there will be fewer people on the tax rolls. That is good to see. I am glad to see the increase in exemptions particularly in respect of the aged, and I am glad to see the provision for deducting expenses for the working man. I do not think I would have had a ceiling of $150 on this, although I am glad to see it.
I assure the minister that these things will be discussed in detail. I am glad to see these changes, although they could be improved. It is true, also, that the tax rate proposed on the first $500 of taxable income is supposed to come down over a period of years from 17 per cent to 6 per cent, if the government sticks to what it says. But, Mr. Speaker, the so-called tax reform package as a whole is a camouflage operation, because once you are on the tax rolls and once you earn more than $500 of taxable income, then of course you run into rates of taxation substantially above the rates of taxation for those brackets today. A person with $1,000 of taxable income who now pays $150 would pay $227.50, and a person with $2,000 of taxable income who now pays $351.50 would pay $474.50.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Edgar John Benson: Taxable income.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I made it very clear that I am talking about taxable income. There is no need for anybody to resort to any misrepresentation.
The Budget-Mr. Stanfield


Mr. Aiken:: Listen and you will hear something.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What I am suggesting to the minister, and what the people of Canada should understand clearly, is that it is people with taxable incomes between $500 and $10,000 a year who will really get the wallop. The Prime Minister suggested as recently as yesterday that it is the wealthy who will pay the increased taxes in this country.
It is not the wealthy people I am talking about. Certainly a taxable income of $2,000 does not give you a very good entry into the jet set. These are ordinary Canadians of average income, and yet they will pay heavier taxes on every bit of increased taxable income which they will earn through 1972, 1973, 1974, and so on. As the years go on and as inflation and productivity go up, it is inevitable that more and more Canadians with modest incomes-and this will come very quickly-will see an ever-increasing proportion of their income taken by the government in income taxation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Your deputy minister should have told you that.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister shakes his head, but he cannot deny it. He cannot deny that the rates on taxable income at the level between $500 and $10,000 a year are substantially higher in his new proposals than the existing tax rate. This means, inevitably, that as the ordinary, average Canadian works his way up a little, either as a result of inflation or as a result of moving ahead he will get a much harder "whammy" than he gets under the existing tax rate.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I assume the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) is rising for the purpose of asking a question. This can be done only with the consent of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) who has the floor.


Edgar John Benson: I am sure the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) would not want to mislead anyone. Does he know that according to the new proposal a taxpayer with two dependants whose income moves up from $2,800 even up to $50,000 would pay less tax than he pays under the present system, no matter how much his income goes up?


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I repeat the statement. There is no question that this is what will happen and this is what produces the money, for example, that may enable the government to reduce corporation taxes as it proposes to do. They refer to this in technical terms as the greater elasticity of the system. Your rates move up much more rapidly, particularly between the levels of $1,000 taxable income and $10,000 taxable income. If, for example, you take someone with a $15,000 taxable income a year, his rates will be about the same as they are now. I am not

June 23, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Stanfield
suggesting that capital gains taxes will be lower, but I am saying as emphatically as I can that this tax package will catch the average Canadian very quickly.
It follows that people with taxable incomes between $1,000 and $10,000 are the ones who will be hit, and it is a false presentation to give to the people of Canada these figures for the year 1972. Therefore, it is necessary for people like myself, and others, to point out exactly what will happen to them under this tax package.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Robin Hood in reverse.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is a misleading presentation.


Edgar John Benson: You are trying to mislead the people.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister knows these things perfectly well. He knows that what I am saying is perfectly correct.


Edgar John Benson: That is not true.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The word "elasticity" is a $30 word, one of those chromium push-button words that the government likes to come up with, I suppose to disguise this kind of hidden "whammy." You have to constantly watch for these words that are used to cover up some kind of ambush.


An hon. Member:: Underwear language.


An hon. Member:: They snap back.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is right, they snap back. It means something stretched

but the kind of stretching that goes on here is neither simple nor innocent. I admit it is a simple thing so far as underwear is concerned, but in characterizing this tax change as giving the average Canadian a better break, the Minister of Finance is stretching the truth. Perhaps the word is just meant to convey the truth. Perhaps you get a break coming out of the gate, but you will be clobbered in the stretch. This is exactly what will happen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: This is the reality that faces the ordinary, average Canadian. He will find it much harder to work his way up in real terms. He will find the government of Canada taking a much bigger percentage of his income as it increases as a result of inflation or through the normal process. It is important that the Canadian people understand this.
I repeat again that there is no reason in the world to believe that if the Minister of Finance continues in his position the tax rates set forth in his proposals will in fact be the tax rates that the people will pay in 1972. Of course, the minister could not stand up here and give any assurance that these will be the rates in effect in 1972, and if for one reason or another as a result of his frequent budgeting he will not change his taxes owing to what he considers to be the necessity of the economy, this is what will happen.
When one looks at the document as presented to us as a tax reform, one thing stands out. I do not want to get involved in semantics; the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton suggested that we should avoid this. This is not really a tax reform at all. Certainly I am very happy that some of the more insane measures have been taken out. But what we are left with is a series of measures that can only be called tax reform by courtesy. As the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton said he hoped, we will have a good deal to say about these specific measures as they come forward. But this is not the time for that.
I ask whether what we now have before us is really the result of some years of work, two or three years at least of frustration and uncertainty and public debate. Is this what business, labour and farmers were put through the wringer for in connection with the white paper? Is this the reason for which time, money and talent were spent? What a waste! True, it is not as bad as it might have been, but why did the Minister of Finance feel it necessary to put the country through all the trouble for this? After all these years, the best the government has been able to do is present something that does not scare the daylights out of everybody. That is some achievement, Mr. Speaker, after years of intensive debate during which the government pretended to take the white paper seriously and in so doing wasted the time and energy of thousands and thousands of Canadians. This government is fond of public relations gimmicks that hide reality. Now it has come up with a new one.
To see the real face of the government we must look at its performance in the present budget. In the midst of massive unemployment it presents an empty, meaningless shell and beside it another one glittering with promises but equally empty. They are both equally worthless and I do not believe the Canadian people will take very long to find this out. Perhaps the government does not intend to give them very long; I don't know. Perhaps this is an election budget, an election package. If it is, then the government is even more cynical than I thought. But it would be in character.
What this country needs is neither election budgets nor promises of pie in the sky. What this country has needed and still needs right now is a budget based upon the goal of a satisfactory rate of employment. What this country needs is not a Minister of Finance who wastes everybody's time with grandiose but completely impractical plans and then rushes off into a disgraceful kind of retreat without even expressing his regrets for the time and the talents that have been wasted. Mr. Speaker, it fits. We have now been through the process of spending three years on constitutional reform and we are told today that the Prime Minister says, "You know, it really isn't very important." That fits too.
What this country needs is a minister who not only knows where he is going but also how he is going to get there. It needs a Minister of Finance who believes in working with others, in the public and private sector alike, to encourage the economy to operate at its full

June 23, 1971

potential for the good of all Canadians. What this country needs in the long run is tax reform that takes into account the need for equity and the need for economic growth. What it needs right now is a policy to permit the economy to push ahead at something close to its full capacity.
It may amuse the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mahoney) that there are about
600,000	Canadians out of work, but I do not find it very funny, Mr. Speaker. What this country needs is not a government that talks of reform but accomplishes nothing and meanwhile creates a climate where uncertainty and distrust destroy the possibility of balanced growth. What this country needs is a government that will work effectively to build confidence and restore sanity, to serve human beings and human dignity. Mr. Speaker, we certainly do not have that kind of government today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker-


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has a difficult
decision to make at this point. I ask the minister to resume his seat because standing will give him no precedence. The decision, of course, is whether to recognize the minister to speak on behalf of the government, or the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) who would like to speak on behalf of the New Democratic Party.
I have to take into account that the motion before the House is one proposed by the party which is represented at this point by the hon. member for Winnipeg North. At the same time, I appreciate there is some importance in allowing the government to reply to a very important speech made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). At this point I am wondering whether it would not be acceptable to both hon. members to divide the time that is left between now and 5.45 p.m., which would allow the minister to reply for 15 minutes or so and the hon. member for Winnipeg North to make a closing speech before the vote at 5.45. The same hon. members, of course, would have an opportunity to make a second speech after we have disposed of the amendment. I would like to know the reaction of the hon. members involved.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to use the full time allotted to me. If you recognize the minister, that will be fine provided that at the next opportunity for debate I have my full time.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe that in the circumstances the Chair should recognize the minister, although I am still open to suggestions. I see the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) seeking the floor on this matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I
was going to make the suggestion that the minister be recognized but that I be permitted to put in a request now that we have two speakers on Friday.
The Budget-Mr. Greene


Mr. Speaker:: I think that is a very reasonable request and certainly the Chair sees no objection to it. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene).


Donald MacInnis: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Cape
Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis) is rising on a point of order. I bring to the attention of the hon. member that we now have only 25 minutes left. The Leader of the Opposition had over an hour for his speech and I think in fairness other members should be given a chance to make their speeches.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on this occasion only to draw attention to the fact that the procedure usually followed in the House has been one that is going to be violated by the minister. I would call on the minister to take the opportunity, some day when he is not on the roster, to appear in the House and make his speech.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This confirms my fear that if we become involved in this point of order we will certainly not proceed the way we should be proceeding or progress the way we should this afternoon. There are only 25 minutes left and I recognize the minister.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) for his courtesy. I do not intend to attempt to answer sally by sally and witticism by witticism the speech of the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), but I do congratulate him on finding a new gag writer. I think in that respect he has done very well indeed. From the standpoint of valid criticism of the budget, I fear I cannot commend him to the same degree.
I was interested to see that the Leader of the Opposition advocated massive or larger tax cuts without in any way indicating what programs he would abrogate as a result of those tax cuts, or whether in fact he would be satisfied to have an even larger deficit than is envisaged in the budget. This is the kind of responsibility we have learned to expect from the official opposition, namely, never telling the Canadian people the cost or the price of the measures that they advocate. I think the government on that score certainly has indicated its responsibility to the Canadian people. In accord with the directions of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his leadership, we have indicated the price of measures that we advocate and not just the benefits of the measures themselves.
In his criticism the Leader of the Opposition certainly failed to do this. While his criticisms have been very largely negative, I think there have been some criticisms of the government's policies in respect of the budget and prior to the budget, with particular reference to resources, that are worthy of reply and I intend to address the few minutes that I have available to me in that direction.

June 23, 1971
The Budget-Mr. Greene
Mr. Speaker, it was that non-liberal but powerful and highly quotable political figure, Edmund Burke, who said:
To tax and to please,
No more than to love and be wise,
Is not given to man.
I use this quotation because it so aptly illustrates the circumstances in which my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has found himself over the past three years in connection with tax reform. The government made clear its desire to have more inputs from the public of Canada in terms of the major policies which will affect our nation. The Minister of Finance has employed this policy of "participatory democracy" in the government's review of proposed tax reform measures.
It was an awesome burden for my colleague the Minister of Finance to carry and a "first" so far as parliamentary traditions are concerned. Never before have so many people had so much involvement, with so much recognition as in the processes which led to the budget speech by the Minister of Finance in the House on June 18 last. It has been a difficult task and one made at times almost unbearable by the criticisms which have been made at large in the country about tax reform and the government's white paper, which was clearly issued for the purpose of consulting with the people of Canada on the nature of the tax reforms which would be efficacious and acceptable to the community at large.
In all of the circumstances I think the Minister of Finance has carried out his assignment with diligence, forbearance and, finally, with excellent results. He may not be able to tax and to please at the same time, but I am sure that he has done as superb a job of balancing all of the competing interests as could have been done by anyone. It is not in the nature of things politic that he will receive thanks from the country commensurate with the contumely he has received in the process of the participatory exercise. I think it would be valid to go on record today to state that his performance has served the nation well and in the long run will be validated by the course of history.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gilbert:: That sounds like a eulogy.


John James Greene: The tax reform proposals introduced by my colleague the Minister of Finance are indeed of historic importance. The process of their development, beginning in 1962, included opinion and comment from individuals, institutions, industry, the provinces, parliamentary committees and, of course, the Royal Commission on Taxation. The degree of national involvement and the ways in which the proposals are sensitive to a diversity of national needs demonstrate clearly that interested Canadians do have a voice in the formulation of national policies and priorities. The sometimes overworked phrase "participatory democracy" has real meaning.

The proposals also represent a milestone in public policy toward the Canadian mineral industry. Tax incentives undoubtedly played a major role in developing the Canadian mineral industry to its present status as the world's third largest diversified mineral industry. It is now a strong, vigorous industry. We are at the stage, therefore, when it is appropriate to reshape the historic incentives to the industry with a view to making them more efficient and responsive to Canadian needs. The replacement of the three-year exemption for new mines at the end of 1973, and the automatic depletion deduction at the end of 1976 by special accelerated depreciation measures and earned depletion provisions, are major changes with philosophical ramifications. In my view, these specific changes have meant a clear recognition of the importance of this sector to the economy and an appreciation by the government of the need for a measure of continued incentive.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, it is important to underscore the fact that ours is a private enterprise system and that a viable mineral industry is an important generator of output and employment. Let me point out that when I use the term mineral industry I mean to include both the mining and the oil and gas industries. These sources of wealth permit us to pursue other national goals more fully and with greater flexibility.
The retention of special incentives along the lines that reflect more directly the needs of the industry and that relate more closely to over-all mineral policy elements is an important shift; it represents one dimension of the approach to resource policy management by governments. By this I mean that, if minerals are to make a maximum contribution to national development, the specific policy instruments available, including tax policy, must be more finely tuned. The tax proposals for the mining and petroleum industries do reflect the risk involved in mineral ventures, the international competition for capital, the incentives available in other countries, and world market conditions.
The proposals also provide a five-year period in which to plan and adjust to the new system. Also of importance is the fact that profitable ventures will bear a fair share of taxation.

I have made reference to several subjects raised in the tax reform proposals and drawn attention to some broad implications in response to the question of public debate concerned with the management of our non-renewable resources and with the government's policies for those resources. There is a close relationship between minerals and current policy issues on taxation, northern development, foreign ownership and control, rural adjustment, regional disparities, science policy, environmental control, foreign trade and aid, international relations and federal-provincial relations.
We recognize that non-renewable resources are a national heritage and also that mineral-related activities are intertwined throughout a wide spectrum of local,
June 23, 1971___________ COMMONS DEBATES	7313
provincial, regional, national and international issues. However, this accentuates the need to continually keep mineral and energy policy under review. There is a need, for example, to develop comprehensive strategies as a basis for confronting external forces pertaining to corporate strategies of multinational firms, resource procurement strategies of industrial nations and resource development strategies of resource producing nations. All these pertain to and affect Canadian mineral and energy policies and all are interrelated.
Probably one of the key factors is the new ethic in regard to the use of resources. Here I refer to the Christian Science Monitor editorial of Saturday, June 19, 1971, which reads in part as follows:
It may help shock the public into awareness that blindly increasing production and consumption for its own sake is at best wasteful, at worst lethal, and at any time immoral in a world of want. But economic growth is not a faucet to be turned off at will.
The real question, it seems to us, must turn on what kind of growth, for what purpose, for whose benefit, and at what cost? This newspaper has called before for continuing growth in the quality of life rather than in material output. Since production of material goods ultimates in wastes, both as side effect and as end product, the new environmental-age view of the national product must weigh social benefits versus social costs.
In the energy and resources field this is certainly a new ethic rather than the pure form of growth we have known in the past and one to which we must address ourselves in policy-making taxwise and otherwise.
The tax changes proposed by my colleague the Minister of Finance last Friday reflect the importance which the government attaches to healthy, dynamic mineral and energy industries. There are some Canadians who do not subscribe to this view, who state that the industry is capital intensive and is therefore a small employer of labour. Economists have never been entirely right in any of these matters-there are economists, quasi-economists and pseudo-economists, but economists generally have not yet been called to attention as lawyers were when Mr. Bumble said, "The law is a ass". We do not yet know whether economics has achieved that status, but at best it is an imperfect science. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that what is required even in this imperfect science is a faith in the validity of the statistics upon which the conclusions are based.
What is also lacking in these public utterances is a searching analysis of the statistics employed to prove a false thesis. The statistics used, in so far as they go, are satisfactory; they, the statistics, and the analysis of them, just do not go far enough. They become, in effect, half-truths-and half-truths can often be more misleading than simple falsehoods because one can readily distinguish the latter. For one thing, they forget that mineral and energy materials are unique in economic terms in that although they require large amounts of capital for their extraction and processing they are, in turn, a source of capital.
Moreover, they also forget that most of our primary processing and many of our manufacturing establishments exist only because they are based on the produc-
The Budget-Mr. Greene
tion of domestic raw materials. This fact is concealed because the statistical system we employ in Canada is part of an international system, a system designed more for highly developed economies such as those of western Europe, the United States and Japan, economies which are highly deficient in mineral raw materials and which import them from abroad to feed their primary processing and manufacturing plants.
The labour employment widely quoted for the mining industry is 120,000, obviously a small part of the Canadian labour force. Simple analysis indicates just how misleading this figure is. For instance, we have in Canada the world's largest primary nickel processing facilities employing thousands of people in Sudbury, Ontario, Thompson, Manitoba, Port Colborne, Ontario, Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta, and a new facility soon to be constructed on the south shore of the St. Lawrence River in Quebec, all of which produce primary metal products for secondary manufacturing. These primary processing operations exist only because of the domestic mines which feed them; their employment statistics are not included in the widely quoted mining labour statistics.
For a small country in terms of population, we possess the world's twelfth largest primary iron and steel industry, an industry which draws much of its raw material from domestic mines. Do those employed in the blast furnaces and steel works in Sault Ste. Marie, Sydney or Hamilton areas show in the mining labour figure? No. The same holds true for the non-ferrous smelters and refineries and primary processing plants in such widely separated places as Trail, B.C., Flin Flon, Manitoba, Timmins, Ontario, Noranda, Murdochville, Sorel and Valley-field, all in Quebec, and Belledune, N.B. Yet these installations, and many others, which employ thousands of Canadians are all engaged in the further removal of waste material from domestic mineral raw materials, for secondary manufacturing in both Canada and abroad. If we add this employment in primary processing to mining industry employment, the figure of 120,000 for mining industry employment more than doubles to 290,000 those engaged directly in the mineral industry.
Let me turn to another aspect of our mineral industry where simple analysis demonstrates its vital role in the economy as a producer of employment, contrary to those who would say otherwise. A simple statistic which is very often neglected is that nearly one-half of the total revenue freight traffic carried by our railways is composed of minerals and mineral products. A simple figure, but what does it mean in real terms of employment and people? It means the construction and operation of railroads by people, and virtually all rail construction in this country during the past quarter of a century has resulted from mineral projects. It means the manufacture of rails in places such as Sydney, Nova Scotia, and Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario; the manufacture of railway freight cars in places such as Trenton, Nova Scotia, Quebec City and Montreal, Quebec, and Oakville and Hamilton, Ontario; the manufacture of diesel-electric locomotives in such *places as London, Ontario, and Montreal, all employing people.
June 23, 1971

The Budget-Mr. Greene
It means the movement of coal, potash, iron ore, mineral concentrates and mineral products to either domestic processing plants or to export markets. But minerals move by means other than rail. We possess the world's second largest pipeline network for the movement of oil and gas, using pipe largely made in Canada, by Canadians, in such places as Welland and Sault Ste. Marie, both in Ontario, Regina, Saskatchewan, and Camrose, Alberta. Even in inland water traffic, mineral products, much of them moving to or from processing plants in Canada along such tremendous waterways as the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Mackenzie River system, comprise at least 60 per cent of total Canadian inland water traffic, and ore boats are loaded, unloaded and run by people.
Returning to the employment side of the industry, direct mineral industry employment totals 290,000 persons or 4 per cent of the labour force, and the effect of employment in the mineral industry on employment in other sectors is to increase the number of mineral-dependent workers to nearly 20 per cent of the labour force. This is a more realistic measure of the worth of the Canadian mineral industry in the Canadian labour market.
Canada is a large country with most of us huddled within a long, thin area extending a hundred or so miles north of the Canada-United States border. If it were not for our resource industries, there is not much more of Canada that we would occupy. The mineral industry is in large part responsible for the spatial development of Canada, for the opening up and settlement of our hinterland-Schefferville, Labrador City, Gagnon, Fermont, soon to be, Chibougamau, Val d'Or, Noranda, Mattagami, Timmins, Sudbury, Red Lake, Atikokan, Lynn Lake, Thompson, Flin Flon, Beaverlodge, Grande Cache, Pine Point, Yellowknife, Faro and dozens of other towns scattered across the more remote parts of this great country. These are communities in which Canadians live and work and enjoy themselves, all on the fruits of mineral resource extraction and processing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John James Greene: Are there those who would suggest that Canada would be a better or wealthier country without those communities and the Canadians who live in them? We are a great trading nation, and minerals and mineral products amount to more than $4 billion, one-third of all our exports, and go to nearly 90 countries in the world. On a value-added basis, our mineral industry production accounts for 8 per cent of the gross national product. There are those, of course, who would minimize the fact of our ability to earn foreign exchange by our mineral industry, but surely if a nation is to balance its books, this is essential. The mineral industry plays a major part in this regard.

If the mineral industry is to be healthy and dynamic, it is not merely for its own sake. Minerals lying fallow in the ground are of no value to a nation. They are only of value when put to the use of the nation, when their
production is of net value to the economy. We have gone a long way toward realizing the value of our mineral heritage; we have further to go in such important areas as further processing before export, mineral-based manufacturing, increased Canadian ownership, and protection of the environment. While recognizing the vital role of the mineral industry in the economy, the proposed tax changes will take us further along the road of increasing the net value to Canadians of their mineral production.

In the light of my foregoing remarks on mineral resource management I will now review a few of the important points of the budget with respect to the help this will give in the development of our mineral industry to the benefit of this country as a whole. The proposed change to broader accelerated depreciation allowance in lieu of the three-year tax holiday will allow all new mines to recover fully their original investment before tax liability-thus allowing for the high risks of mineral exploration-while avoiding the windfall profits that accrued to some operations under the tax holiday provision.
Expenditures on major expansions at existing mines will also qualify for accelerated depreciation. The mine assets to which the accelerated depreciation will apply include exploration and development costs as well as much directly related infrastructure, including a refinery. It may be noted that pollution equipment, on which the 12 per cent sales tax was removed by the budget, should also be eligible for accelerated depreciation when directly related to a mine. This will greatly assist the mineral industry in meeting its responsibilities toward the maintenance of the quality of our environment. I would also point out, Mr. Speaker, that these measures will encourage the further processing of our natural resources in Canada.
The replacement of the automatic, permanent percentage depletion allowance by a depletion allowance which has to be earned is designed to encourage the reinvestment of tax savings, resulting from various incentives, in further exploration and development. The amount of the depletion earned will be directly related to the amount of exploration and development undertaken by a company. The capacity to earn depletion is extended to non-operators as well as operators. This provision applies to both the mining industry and the oil and gas industries.
Mining companies will now enjoy a broadened base for exploration and development write-offs with the inclusion of the cost of property acquisition; oil and gas already has this tax privilege. This change should help to stimulate the exploration for and discovery of new mineral deposits, thus broadening Canada's mineral resource base. The provision of a tax benefit to Canadian mining and petroleum corporations conducting foreign exploration and development may at first glance appear anomalous. However, this is a positive step forward in assisting the international competitiveness of Canadian companies in world markets for resources and resource products

June 23, 1971

and in enabling the growth of strong world Canadian corporations in the minerals industry.
The proposed general reduction in the corporate tax rate will, of course, benefit the minerals industry as it does all other sectors of our national economy. As a whole the tax proposals will serve to maintain a vigorous, expanding and competitive minerals industry and, at the same time, will allow the activities of the industry to benefit the Canadian economy more directly.
Increased employment in the mineral industry itself and in these auxiliary industries which supply equipment, material and services to it, is dependent upon continuing growth in the mineral sector. That growth will be dependent upon the attraction of capital investment to the mineral industry in Canada in competition with opportunities for investment in the mineral industries of other countries. There are those who forget that mineral capital, capital for the development of natural resources is global, not domestic, and one must compete with the tax measures of other countries-


Some hon. Members:: Why? What is the hurry?


John James Greene: -if we would have those companies grow, contrary to the view of the New Democratic Party which would have them shrink into the ground and achieve nothing. That party is calling for full employment without growth.


David Orlikow: Give-away Joe!


John James Greene: Its attitude toward these questions indicates the government has seen the need-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being 5.45 p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to section 6 of Standing Order 60, to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put the question on the subamendment now before the House. All those in favour of the subamendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy-Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1972.
An act relating to ambient air quality and to the control of air pollution.
An act respecting unemployment insurance in Canada.
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Right Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
Mr. Speaker:: It being after six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Friday morning, June 25, at eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 23.
At 6.23 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Friday, June 25, 1971