1972-03-01

TABLING OF SECOND REPORT OF CLERK OF PETITIONS

Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the second report of the Clerk of Petitions.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I was delayed for a moment in getting into the House and so was not present when the second report of the Clerk of Petitions was tabled on behalf of the people of Old Crow. I have discussed this matter with the government House leader and I would now ask that the House give unanimous consent to have the text of the petition printed at the appropriate place in Hansard for today's proceedings.


Mr. Speaker:: As hon. members know, under the terms of the Standing Order the Chair now has to inquire whether there is unanimous consent for the reading of the petition but I assume that the same result would be achieved by unanimous consent to print the petition. Is there unanimous agreement to this effect?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note:	For text of above petition, see
appendix.]

SPRING!


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege affecting all members of the House and all people in Canada. Your Honour will have noticed that hon. members are wearing daffodils today which marks the arrival of spring in Canada. I bring greetings from the people of the west coast, and in particular from the Greater Vancouver Tourist and Convention Bureau which has sent this gift of daffodils to mark the arrival of spring, incongruous though that may seem here in Ottawa today.



ST. DAVID'S DAY

Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to remind the House that today, March 1, is St. David's Day, named for the patron saint of Wales. It is a great pleasure for all of us that the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) is present and in good health, he having recently become a Welshman by blood transfusion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. ]ames A. McGrath (St. John's East): Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a question of privilege, notice of which has been given pursuant to the Standing Order. My question of privilege arises out of information given the House on a matter within the administrative responsibilities of the government. I shall be as brief as possible. I regret that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand) is not in his seat.
The facts are as follows: in a government publication issued by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion under the authority of the minister and entitled "Regional Development Incentives Act, A Summary of Offers Accepted to 30 June, 1971", a certain entry appears. This entry lists the firm of A. Belanger Ltee., Montreal, and its location is given as Montmagny, Quebec. Under "Type of Industry" it states that the firm is engaged in the manufacture of stoves, freezers and metal shelves. It goes on to describe the capital cost of the plant and the amount of the grant paid to the firm, which was $158,580.
On Monday, February 28, 1972, during the oral question period there occurred the following exchange between the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. McBride) and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, which is to be found at page 305 of Hansard:
Mr. Murray McBride (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the announcement on Friday last by Belanger-Tappan Limited that they propose to close their Carle-ton Place plant known as Findlay's Limited in the very near future and to concentrate their production at the Montmagny plant in the province of Quebec, has this company received any federal assistance from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to create, improve or enlarge this company's facilities at Montmagny?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, and there is no relationship between what is going on at Montmagny and the closing of the Findlay plant at Carleton Place.


Murray Arndell McBride: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. Are we to take it that no application for a grant is at present before the department, as well as no grant having already been provided?

March 1, 1972
Regional Economic Expansion Information


Jean Marchand: At present there is no application from the company, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that the firm of A. Belanger Ltee and the firm of Belanger-Tappan Limited are one and the same. In the words of the law, "the matter speaks for itself". I will not go beyond pointing out that the apparent conflict between the statement made in the document that was issued under the authority of the minister and the statement voluntarily made by the minister in the House is such as can only be investigated in a committee of this House where witnesses can be called, put under oath, questioned and cross-examined. I believe it is the right and due of any member to obtain correct information from ministers of the Crown. That right is the very keystone of the privileges of the parliamentary process.
Therefore, with your approval, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin):
That the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections forthwith inquire into and report upon the matter of the information published by the government relating to federal grants to A. Belanger Ltee, a Montreal firm, for projects at Montmagny, Quebec, and the information given to the House by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion during oral questions on the 28th February, 1972 in reply to the member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carle-ton (Mr. McBride) respecting "Closing of Carleton Place Factory by Belanger-Tappan Limited-Inquiry as to Grant for Montmagny Plant", and that the report of the committee, with its recommendations thereon, be made to the House as quickly as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. John's East has filed with the Chair the notice required under the terms of Standing Order 17. With respect, I suggest to the hon. member that the matter which he proposes for consideration by the House cannot come before us by way of a breach of parliamentary privilege. I remind him and all hon. members that the whole question of the administration of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, including the question of the minister's administration, is now before the Standing Committee on Regional Development. I would suggest that the hon. member's claim that there is a discrepancy between a verbal reply given by the minister and a publication issued by his department should be considered by the Standing Committee on Regional Development rather than by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
The hon. member suggests in his presentation to the House that this kind of matter should be considered in committee where witnesses can be called and examined. I would think that that could be done and should be done not by way of breach of privilege of the House but in the appropriate committee. There is a long line of rulings, as the hon. member knows, that discrepancies between statements made by a minister cannot be brought up in the House for consideration by way of a breach of parliamentary privilege.
Therefore, consistent with long-established practice I have to rule that there is not a prima facie case of privilege to be considered by the House at this time.


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could rephrase the motion?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Whether the motion were to refer the matter to another committee or not, the decision of the Chair is that this kind of matter cannot be considered to be a breach of parliamentary privilege. Even if the motion were changed I could not agree to putting the matter to the House for discussion and debate by way of a question of privilege.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Baldwin:: The minister is always moving about.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I have found I have to keep moving, Mr. Speaker.


Gerald William Baldwin: Why does the minister not move forward instead of backwards?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is an expert on that.


Gerald William Baldwin: I certainly am, having watched the minister.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I should like to lay on the table a memorandum with respect to an agreement between the premiers of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and myself on behalf of the federal government concerning a review board to study the question of tidal power in the Bay of Fundy and setting out terms of reference and also the personnel appointed by each of the three governments.



ANNOUNCEMENT OF INITIAL PAYMENTS FOR WHEAT, OATS AND BARLEY FOR NEXT CROP YEAR

Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of lustice):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the practice established by the government for the first time last year of announcing initial payments for wheat, oats and barley prior to seeding time, I wish to inform the House of the level of initial payments which will become effective for purchases by the Canadian Wheat Board for the crop year commencing August 1, 1972.
For the basic grade of wheat, No. 1 Canada Western Red Spring Wheat, the initial payment will be $1.46 per bushel, the same as in the current crop year. The initial payment for No. 3 Canada Western Six-Row Barley will be 96 cents per bushel, an increase of 5 cents on the level presently in effect. The initial payment for No. 2 Canada Western Oats will be 60 cents per bushel, unchanged from the current crop year. All initial payments are basis in store Thunder Bay.

March 1, 1972

The initial payments for the grades of wheat, barley and oats other than basic grades mentioned will be established by the Canadian Wheat Board and announced at a later date.
I should like to add, Mr. Speaker, that a newsletter will be mailed to all prairie grain producers in the next few days indicating crop prospects, acreage guidelines, and minimum quota levels for the 1972-73 crop year. A minimum total delivery by producers of 505 million bushels of wheat, 260 million bushels of barley, and 13 million bushels of oats is assured in the coming crop year. These are minimum deliveries and if sales require increased deliveries, additional quotas will be opened.
I apologize to hon. members opposite for the shortness of the notice I was able to give them of this matter. However, the very good news of the large sale to the Soviet Union required us to do some final work on that matter. I am sure hon. members opposite will support the high levels of grain which will be received next year as a minimum and also the increase in the initial price for barley.


Gerald William Baldwin: When will the government learn how to deliver the grain? How about transportation?


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, as is evident from some "heehaws" we heard in the House when the minister announced the mailing of the newsletter, it is quite obvious that we will take it with more than a grain of salt. We will treat it with the respect that it deserves prior to an election.


Mr. Knowles:: This is all being done at government expense.


Stanley James Korchinski: May I point out it is evident that the minister was very reluctant to increase-


An hon. Member:: Very happy.


Stanley James Korchinski: -the price of spring wheat. It is evident that there is no prospect for an increase in wheat prices in the year ahead. It is also evident, therefore, that next year, as pointed out in studies which have been made, there will be no increase in wheat prices. Despite the minister's reassurance that there will be more sales we are not very happy because in the end result it is what you get for your product that really counts. We know that the price of other products has risen. We want the price of our product to rise also, and a prospective increase for wheat is not evident from the minister's statement.
The payment announced for barley is very interesting. A year ago we were told that a certain price would be paid for barley. Then the Canadian Wheat Board committed itself to a certain level of shipments. It was not able to meet that commitment because farmers were getting a higher price from other sources than they could get from the Wheat Board. Consequently, they were not delivering to the Wheat Board. The Wheat Board had to increase the price by ten cents. There was an interim payment. That ten cent increase resulted in a $10 million deficit for the pool account. This year the increase is not 10 cents but 5 cents.
Grain Payments
With regard to oats, only 13 million bushels are involved, which is neither here nor there. One can almost completely disregard the amount of oats as they will be used entirely within this country.
Regardless of what assurances the minister may give, transportation of grain in and outside our country must always be foremost. This has been quite evident in the last year. The stabilization bill also enters into this announcement if the minister is going to propose stabilization in the manner he proposed it before. The barley producers would have lost the $10 million under that proposal, and the government has to make up the difference.
May I make one other point. No encouragement for the production of wheat is to be found in the price. The farmers are getting about 40 cents less than they were in 1967-68, and there is no encouragement at all. Even if the price had been increased by 10 cents I do not think anyone would grab for it, but it would have committed the government. It would have indicated that perhaps the government is optimistic about markets and opportunities to sell grain at a higher price.
Although we welcome the fact that the minister has announced prices, we wonder why a statement has been made in this case when the minister merely tabled a report the other day on the sale of wheat to Russia. On this occasion he made comments. If we are going to play a fair ballgame, if the Minister of Justice is going to be a minister of justice, and if justice means anything to him, he should realize that comments on all aspects of grain sales, which are paramount to the total income of not only the Canadian producers but also the-I am sorry Mr. Speaker, but I am being interrupted.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I might take this opportunity to interrupt the hon. member for a moment and remind him of the requirements of the Standing Order. From time to time I take the opportunity to remind hon. members that the Standing Order as drafted requires members making comments on ministerial statements to be brief. Sometimes it is difficult to interpret the term "brevity", but I hope the hon. member will consider bringing his remarks to a conclusion as soon as possible.


Stanley James Korchinski: I appreciate Your Honour's comments. I will only be another minute. When the Solicitor General (Mr. Goyer) took a fairly long time to make a statement the other day I thought that this was an acceptable procedure of the House.
I only want to say I do not think the minister gave any indication that there will be an increase in revenue for the western grain producers. Every indicator shows that they will have reduced incomes. The 5 cents which the minister has offered on barley will certainly be very discouraging even for the barley producers because of the $10 million loss last year. In other words, they might as well get out of the business.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, at least the minister is coming into the House with forecasts and is stating what he considers to be reasonable objectives that farmers can meet this year. I hope this may indicate that the minister has returned to the basic con-

March 1, 1972
Grain Payments
cept upon which the Wheat Board was established, that of an agency to sell grain and return the proceeds of those sales to the farmers.
I hope he has finally got away from projects such as Lift, has finally abandoned the intricacies and convolutions of grain stabilization programs and has returned to the position where he intends to move the grain and get the high dollar for the farmer. If this is any indication he intends to do that, we shall all cheer.
I would point out one thing to him. Taking the initial prices for the three grains, the initial price for barley should be increased. The minister has concerned himself with distortions in production. The low initial price for barley may be one of the factors which will distort production in the coming year.
I think, also, that the study on the rationalization of transportation and storage should be released to the public without delay. Unless this is done, the system of handling, storing and moving grain will not make the progress which should be made. We are in a crisis with regard to the movement of grain to the west coast. This is common knowledge. Before the House is dissolved, before we go into an election, the minister in charge of the Wheat Board or the Minister of Transport should bring forward an all-inclusive program in relation to the movement and storage of grain. If this is delayed for another year we will have lost that much time in implementing a program to meet this crucial problem for Prairie farmers. This is our lifeline and if the government does not bring some program into the House before the next election it will be failing in its responsibilities to the grain farmers of western Canada. I take the opportunity to say this to the minister in the House because there will be changes in the grain handling industry in any case and unless they are properly directed they may very well not be the ones we want.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, considering that I have read the minister's statement in the last few minutes only, it was obviously impossible for me to compare prices for 1971 with those that the minister has just announced for 1972.
In any event, when looking at the budget that was tabled, particularly at the amounts allotted to agricultural expansion and to price support, one finds that, in the primary sector, there is a reduction from this year. Now, it is quite possible that adjustments were made in different sectors.
I n6te, for instance, that subsidies for dairy products were reduced to $21 million. I cannot say whether this reduction is justified because I have not had the opportunity of studying the matter thoroughly.
At any rate, I say that both in the east and in the west, it is the government's responsibility to give the people of Canada a strong, stable agricultural industry. To this end, the government must give producers advance notice of the prices to be paid them during the crop year. On that point some headway has been made.
Concerning grain, the hon. minister has, for the second consecutive year, made a sufficiently early announcement of his policy, for which I am much thankful to him. I should, however, like to seize the opportunity of once

more calling his attention to the existence in Canada, and particularly in the eastern provinces, of a serious feed grain problem
It is urgent that a solution be found. I understand that efforts have been made, that there has been some improvement, but not enough to place eastern producers on the same level as those in the west.
Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the Prime Minister's statement in Montreal last month that agriculture must learn to be self-sufficient and that grants for agricultural production must be discontinued, I disagree entirely with him on that subject and I should like to put this on the record, because many other sectors of our economy get government grants for their survival. We could see, in the speech that the hon. Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) made yesterday, that my remarks are utterly correct in this respect.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the whole agricultural community I wish our governments would get into the habit of being efficient, not only during the last year of their terms of office but throughout their terms, because when I, for instance, hire someone and he is efficient only during the last hour, I say that he has not fulfilled his responsibility and I hasten to fire him.



TABLING OF DOCUMENT OUTLINING CANADIAN POSITION ON CONVENTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED AT 1969 AND 1970 INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCES

Hon. Martin P. O'Connell (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2) I should like to table a document, in English and in French, outlining the Canadian position with respect to conventions and recommendations adopted at the 53rd and 54th sessions of the International Labour Conference at Geneva, June, 1969, and June, 1970.



MANPOWER


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent importance, namely, the indiscriminate and indiscreet distribution of large amounts of money under the local initiatives program sponsored by the Department of Manpower and Immigration. I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That a special reference be made, from this House to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, to investigate the distribution of funds, to examine the criteria on which the distribution was based, to examine the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and officials of his department, in order to determine
March 1, 1972

the bases for project decisions of a questionable nature, and to recommend to the House a set of guidelines and principles which would give the representatives of the Canadian people more control over the spending of the taxpayers' dollars on the programs involved.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to the motion proposed by the hon. member?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



TAXATION


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I should like to seek the permission of the House to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity, namely, the decision of the government to remit $6 million in sales taxes to Great Canadian Oil Sands Limited. In view of the fact that there was supposed to be a question of need and the company was supposed to be poverty-stricken, whereas subsequently it was discovered that the same company also applied for and received a remission of royalties from the province of Alberta, and as it is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Sun Oil Company of Philadelphia, whose net revenues were $152 million-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows the rule. He is required to put the motion without argument or debate.


Frank Howard: I had just reached the point of proposing the motion, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters):
That the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs-
This committee was chosen deliberately because justice is needed here.
-be authorized to inquire into the decision of the government to remit $6 million in sales taxes to Great Canadian Oil Sands Limited with particular reference to (1) the public interest (2) the remission of royalties by the Alberta government, and (3) the financial position of Great Canadian Oil Sands Limited and its relationship to Sun Oil Company of Philadelphia as well as to the financial position of the said Sun Oil Company.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity; the motion cannot be put.
Family Income Security FAMILY INCOME SECURITY



IMMEDIATE PRESENTATION OF LEGISLATION-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O.43

Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43 I should like the consent of the House to present a motion. The government appears to have given low priority again to the proposed family income security plan, even though we on this side of the House had offered to sit for an extra week.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to take exception to the kind of motion which is now proposed by the hon. member. Hon. members know that Standing Order 43 is a very exceptional Standing Order. If the government were to take advantage of the Standing Order in the way private members are doing, I think there would be a great hue and cry that the government was trying to propose motions without giving due notice. The only justification for the submission of a motion under Standing Order 43 is that the matter in question is of such urgency that the time-honoured, traditional provision that there shall be notice given of any motion proposed to the House by the government, by the opposition or by a private member, cannot be followed. The only exception to that rule is where the matter is of such urgency that a motion should be proposed, either by the government or by a private member, under the terms of Standing Order 43.
I submit that this Standing Order does not provide members with the opportunity to make allegations, statements of fact or alleged fact, in support of the motion proposed. The only statement that can be made, I suggest, must have reference to the matter of urgency. If we get involved in a situation where every day we have motions which are actually debate, every one of the 263 members in the House could tomorrow move three or four motions of this kind without giving due notice. This certainly would not be in conformity with the traditions of this House.
I am not pointing the finger at the hon. member in particular because he is, perhaps, only doing what we have slowly slipped into doing, namely, the submission of argument when he should really be limiting the brief presentation to the question of urgency which would justify the very exceptional circumstance of an appeal to Standing Order 43.


Mr. Bell:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I am just reminding hon. members of the rules. If the hon. member is rising on a point of order, I will hear him.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I rise briefly to repeat what I have said before. The main reason that we move these motions is the disgraceful attendance of ministers under the roster system, and I include the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I should like to draw to the attention of the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) the fact that his leader is away today.


Mr. Peters:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

March 1, 1972
Family Income Security


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Timiskaming is rising on a point of order.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I am in agreement with your decision on the last motion moved under Standing Order 43 and on a number of others as well. However, it does seem to me that if members use this method in a bona fide way as a means of putting forward their point of view on a matter of extreme urgency, then there has also to be an obligation on the part of members who refuse to give unanimous consent. I think they should have to stand and object to the putting of such a motion. It seems to me that if this is not done the use of this Standing Order will become a safety valve such as the "late show" and it will lose its importance.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The point made by the hon. member has been made before. What the hon.member is suggesting, effectively, is that the Standing Order should be changed. That is a possibility which might be considered by the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. I have indeed suggested before that this Standing Order and its operation should be considered by this august body and I am sure that some day they will get around to it. For the moment I do not want to raise a fuss about the matter, particularly in relation to the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador. He was not at fault any more than others. I thought it might be a good opportunity to make my point of order, and I will be glad to listen to him now.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Mr. Speaker, I would have been long since finished and we would have been halfway through the question period. In any event, the urgency of this question is that this legislation was placed on the order paper last September and allowed to die because the government would not bring it up. I will proceed to my motion. In view of the fact it appears that this legislation will be delayed much further, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That this House urges the government to present forthwith the legislation on family allowances; that second reading be called by no later than next Monday, and that highest priority be given its passage through the complete legislative mill to permit its earliest possible implementation.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard a number of nays and the motion cannot be put.



CANADA LABOUR CODE


Mr. Rod Thomson (Battleford-Kindersley) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-162, to amend the Canada Labour Code (retirement plan).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Mr. Speaker, at the present time employees who are released or leave voluntarily from a federal work or undertaking as a going concern are not entitled to pension benefits if they leave before the retirement age. The purpose of this bill is to require the employer of such an undertaking to provide to the employee at age 55 a paid-up pension after ten years of work commensurate with the number of years he was in its employ, whether he leaves voluntarily or is released by the employer, and to provide for the employee a guaranteed portion of employer's contribution to the pension plan when the employee has worked over five but less than ten years.


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

Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: for leave to introduce Bill C-163, to amend the Canada Labour Code (pension on permanent closing).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Mr. Speaker, at the present time employees with many years of service are subject to losing pension rights when an undertaking permanently closes. The purpose of this bill is to require the employer of such an undertaking, when it is permanently closed, to provide for the employee at age 55 a pension commensurate with the number of years he was in its employ.


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

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

Mr. McIntosh: 1.	During the past two years that Mr. Hilding Franson was employed by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, was the Minister aware that in this same period Mr. Franson was also in the employ of an engineering firm known as EPEC and, if so (a) what salary was Mr. Franson paid by the Department (b) was the Department officially notified that Mr. Franson was working on behalf of a private firm while he was with the Department?
2.	Did the Regina engineering firm of EPEC have any contracts with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and DREE and, if so, what was the nature of each contract?
3.	Have any complaints been received by the Minister or the Department from other engineering firms regarding the dual capacity of Mr. Franson in dealing with government contracts?
4.	(a) Was an investigation carried out to ascertain if other departmental employees were involved or associated with such transactions (b) was disciplinary action necessary and, if so, what was the nature of any such disciplinary action?
March 1, 1972


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Departments of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Regional Economic Expansion as follows: 1. According to Departmental records, Mr. Franson was not employed by EPEC during the two years he was employed by this Department, (a) Mr. Franson was classified at the AR-3 level which salary range was $13,836 to $15,723 in 1971. (b) Not applicable.
2.	No.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	(a) Not applicable, (b) Not applicable.


CANADIAN MAJORITY-OWNED COMPUTER FIRMS
Mr. Ryan: 1.	At the present time, how many Canadian majority-owned computer firms are in existence?
2.	Since 1965, how many Canadian majority-owned computer firms have been taken over by United States companies?
3.	Are there any government programs designed to stimulate the growth of the Canadian computer industry and, if so, (a) what are the programs (b) what funds are available to such programs (c) what are the criteria for access to such funds?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Department of Communications and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce as follows: 1. The latest year for which the information required is available is 1969; there were 82 Canadian corporations majority-owned.
2.	No statistical information is available on that matter.
3.	The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce administers a number of programs designed to stimulate the growth of all segments of Canadian secondary manufacturing industry, including the computer industry. A wide variety of programs is available including the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act, the Program for the Advancement of Industrial Technology and the General Adjustment Assistance Program. The Department distributes brochures and pamphlets to industry giving full details and criteria for these programs. The funds available under these programs are set forth in the Department's annual estimates.


INCENTIVE GRANTS ADVISORY BOARD
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Who are the members of the committee from outside government, who supervise the application of the DREE grants to industries and the allocation of subsidies?
2.	Are these people paid for such supervision and allocation and, if so (a) on what basis (b) what amounts have been paid to each for such services in 1971?
3.	Do these people hold meetings and, if so, what secretarial and other services are provided for them?
4.	Do these people receive travelling and living allowances and, if so, what amounts did each receive in 1971?
5.	Do these people take any oath regarding their duties and, if so, what is the nature of the oath?


Jean Marchand: 1. The members, from outside government, of the Incentives Advisory Board, which advises the Department of Regional Economic Expansion on the application
Questions
of its industrial incentives program, are: Mr. E. Kendall Cork; Mr. Jack Estey; Mr. Robert H. Jones; Mr. L. Beaudoin (resigned 1/1/72); Mr. M. W. Mackenzie; Mr. L. H. Lorrain (appointed 15/12/71).
2.	No.
3.	Yes, one meeting per month. Secretarial services are provided by the Department.
4.	Yes; Mr. E. Kendall Cork, $919.07; Mr. Jack Estey, $1377 14; Mr. R. H. Jones, $1466.53; Mr. L. Beaudoin, $176.00; Mr. M. W. Mackenzie, $400.00.
5.	No.


SALARY RANGE FOR CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF PENSION REVIEW BOARD
Mr. McCleave: What is the salary range for the Chairman and other members of the Pension Review Board?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Chairman, $22,000-$27,000; other members, $20,000-$25,000.


ARDA PROGRAM-COURSES IN FARMING
Mr. Laprise: Under the ARDA program, have any grants been made for courses in farming and, if so (a) in what years (b) in what amounts?


Jean Marchand: No.


CANCER RESEARCH
Mrs. Maclnnis: 1.	How many lives were lost in Canada in the fiscal year 1969-70 due to lung cancer?
2.	How much money did the Department of National Health and Welfare accord for cancer research directly to the National Cancer Institute of Canada in the fiscal year 1969-70?
3.	What has been the total financial support of the National Cancer Institute from federal sources since 1947?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by Statistics Canada and the Department of National Health and Welfare as follows: 1. Statistics on the number of deaths due to lung cancer are collected on a calendar year rather than fiscal year basis. For the 1970 calendar year there were 5,048 deaths due to lung cancer.
2.	Under the National Health Grant program, $350,000 was paid directly to the National Cancer Institute for cancer research. This does not include the grants of the Medical Research Council.
3.	More than $4,000,000 for the period 1948-49 to 1970-71, from the Department of National Health and Welfare.
25020-27.!

Questions


FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO FLOOD VICTIMS
Mr. McCleave: 1.	What requests have been made by the Government of Nova Scotia for financial assistance to victims of flooding in 1971?
2.	What has been the government's response?


James Alexander Jerome: 1 and 2. Nova Scotia suffered damage from two severe storms in 1971; first, in the very early spring, flooding caused damages assessed at less than $500,000 and second, Hurricane Beth, later in the year apparently resulted in more severe losses. The Government of Nova Scotia requested financial assistance in respect of damages arising from the early spring flood but did not qualify under the cost-sharing formula which has been applied in similar cases in the past. (See answer to question 748, Hansard, February 3, 1971). No request has been received for federal financial sharing in provincial costs arising from Hurricane Beth.


SHUBENACADIE RIVER CROSSING
Mr. McCleave: Have any submissions been made in 1971 by the Government of Nova Scotia to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion with regard to the Shubenacadie River Crossing and, if so, what were the submissions?


Jean Marchand: No.


MIDWIFERY DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
Mr. Rynard: 1.	By province, how many demonstration projects are being carried out to train nurses in the practice of midwifery?
2.	By province, what is the amount of the National Health grant for this project?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. and 2. No application has been received as of this date, under the National Health Grant program, to support demonstration projects for the training of nurses specifically in the practice 6f midwifery. However, the following projects have received financial support under this program to expand the role of the nurse as nurse practitioner and which may involve this particular activity as a component.


SHUBENACADIE RIVER CROSSING
Mr. McCleave: Have any submissions been made in 1971 by the Government of Nova Scotia to the Department of Transport with regard to the Shubenacadie River Crossing and, if so, what were the submissions?


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: The Premier of Nova Scotia has made representations to the President of the Canadian Transport Commission on a confidential basis.

Ontario
The contribution of a nurse practitioner to health care of patients in a medical practice-Queen's University- Kingston. Amount approved 1971-72-$11,378.65.
The study of the role of a nurse in a family practice unit-School of Nursing, University of Toronto. Amount approved 1971-72-$19,525.
The job of a nurse practitioner in a family practice unit-McMaster University-Hamilton. Amount approved 1971-72-$6,900.
Study of nurse activities in primary care setting- McMaster University-Hamilton. Amount approved 1971-72-$27,681.40.
The Wellesley Hospital Nursing Service project-The Wellesley Hospital-Toronto. Amount approved 1971-72- $15,113.
Manitoba
Comprehensive family care project-Children's Hospital of Winnipeg. Amount approved 1971-72-$14,090.
Alberta
The practicing physician and allied health personnel-a study of the team approach in the delivery of personal Health care-University of Alberta-Dept, of Community Medicine. Amount approved 1971-72-$39,978.46


'COST OF PUBLICATION OF BOOKLET ENTITLED &quot;HOW YOUR TAX DOLLAR IS SPENT&quot;
Mr. Rynard: 1.	What was the cost of preparation, publication and distribution of the booklet "How Your Tax Dollar Is Spent"?
2.	How many copies of this booklet were printed?
3.	Was the circulation list of the RCAF Association made available to Information Canada and, if so (a) by what means (b) on whose authority was such an arrangement concluded (c) what was the cost, if any, involved?
4.	Are these circulation lists and similar lists, considered to be private, to be used to send other government propaganda?


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Treasury Board secretariat and Information Canada as follows: 1. Preparation, $9,268; publication, $88,092.
2.	600,000 copies.
3.	No.
4.	No.


COST OF SURVEY MADE BY FOOD AND DRUG DIRECTORATE
Mr. Rynard: 1.	What was the cost of the survey made by inspectors of the Food and Drug Directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare in January 1971 in Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver on the retail prices of some common drugs?
2.	For what reason did the Food and Drug Directorate do a survey on drug costs when all previous surveys tested for quality and safety of drugs and inspection of drug manufacturing facilities?
3.	For what reason was this survey not conducted by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?
March 1, 1972


John Carr Munro: 1. The cost of the survey has been calculated from records as 35 cents per pamphlet.
2.	Ministers have indicated on numerous occasions the Government's concern about the high cost of drugs. Although data on comparative drug costs are being supplied regularly to the health profession by means of the Drug Bulletin sent to physicians, pharmacists, veterinarians and dentists, it was considered desirable to also provide information on drug costs directly to consumers, in order that they might be able to reap the economies which can result from comparison shopping.
3.	The interests of the disadvantaged consumers of Canada are of concern to both the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Resources were provided by the Department of National Health and Welfare for the survey conducted in January of this year.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES COVERING FLQ KIDNAPPERS OF JAMES CROSS
Mr. Fortin: 1.	Has the government made any expenditures on the FLQ kidnappers deported to Cuba, and, if so, what amount?
2.	Does the government pay compensation to Cuba in respect of these people and, if so, what is the annual amount?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. No, the Canadian Government has not made any expenditures on the FLQ kidnappers.
2.	No, the Canadian Government does not pay compensation to the Government of Cuba in this matter.
DREDGING OPERATIONS-ST. LAWRENCE RIVER BETWEEN LfiVIS AND MONTMAGNY


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	Are any dredging operations now in progress in the St. Lawrence between Levis and Montmagny and, if so (a) what department is responsible for such operations (b) what is the probable duration of such operations?
2.	Was a contract issued for the dredging and, if so (a) what company was awarded the contract (b) what is the total amount of the contract?


Gérard Duquet: 1. Yes. (a) Department of Transport, (b) A period of three years commencing summer 1971.
2.	Yes. (a) Marine Industries Limited of Montreal, McNamara Corporation Limited of Willowdale and The J. P. Porter Company Limited of Montreal-joint venture,
(b)	4 October, 1971. (c) $20,860,000.


PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ON TAX RETURN
Mr. Coates: 1.	How many copies of the White Paper on Taxation were produced, who produced them, and at what cost?
2.	How many copies of the original Bill C-259 were produced, by whom, and at what cost?
3.	How many amended versions of Bill C-259 were produced, by whom, and at what cost?
Questions
4.	What additional information was produced in pamphlet form with regard to the White Paper on Taxation and Bill C-259, who produced it, how many copies of each were produced, and at what cost?
Mr. ]. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council): I am informed by the Departments of Finance and Supply and Services, as follows: 1. The Canadian Printing Bureau printed 175,500 copies of the White Paper on Taxation at a total cost of $61,668.55.
2.	14,585 copies of Bill C-259 were produced in First Reading form by the Printing Bureau at a cost of $106,471.
3.	Two amended versions: (a) Revised First Reading as amended by the Committee of the Whole, and, (b) Third Reading form were produced by the Printing Bureau. The revised First Reading cost was $13,446, and the Third Reading is $38,898.
4.	Additional information on the White Paper and Bill C-259, all produced by the Canadian Government Printing Bureau, included: 5,800 copies of White Paper highlights, $1,412.06; 140,000 copies of a Summary of 1971 Tax Reform Legislation, $51,567.83; 19,000 copies of Highlights of the June 18 Budget Measures and Tax Reform Legislation, $5,846.13.


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT-HIRING OF CONSULTANT
Mr. Coates: 1.	Has the Department of Transport, through its Corporate Planning Branch or any other branch, hired a consultant in strategic planning and, if so (a) what is the name of the consultant (b) what are his responsibilities (c) how long has he been in the employ of the Department (d) is he under a specific contract or on a per diem rate and in either case, what are the terms of the contract (e) what amount has he received to date in salary and expenses (f) what has he provided to the Department to date in planning and how many of the plans submitted have been utilized by the Department and in what manner?
2.	On whose recommendation was this consultant employed and for what period of time will his services be required?


Gérard Duquet: 1. (a) Yes. The name of the firm is Ernst & Ernst, (b) To provide professional assistance in the design, development and documentation of a comprehensive Strategic Planning System for the Canadian Air Transportation Administration, (c) Periodically since November 2, 1970. (d) Ernst and Ernst are under a specific contract. The terms specify per diem rates for specific services to be rendered. The rates vary according to the seniority of the consultants, (e) Since November 2, 1970 to date, Ernst and Ernst have received $54,580 for consulting services rendered and were reimbursed $5,738 for related travel and living expenses, (f) Assistance in establishing a comprehensive planning system for the Canadian Air Transportation Administration. Ernst and Ernst are not responsible for the actual preparation of plans.
2.	The Department of Transport, Management Services Branch, conducted a search for a firm with the required capabilities. This search resulted in a contract with Ernst and Ernst. The contract expires March 31, 1972.

March 1, 1972
Questions


FEDERAL GRANT TO SURREPTITIOUS REDEMPTION ASSOCIATION OF LONDON
Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 1.	Has the Surreptitious Redemption Association of London received a grant from the government and, if so (a) in what amount (b) on what basis has this amount been allocated (c) when was this association established (d) what are its stated aims and purposes (e) will reports be required?
2.	Are grants of a similar nature being made to other associations in Canada and, if so, to whom and in what amounts?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: 1. The Surreptitious Redemption Association of London has been awarded a grant by the Citizenship Branch of the Department of the Secretary of State.
(a)	$5,000.
(b)	The grant was awarded on the basis that the work of the group meets one of the objectives of the Citizenship Branch in awarding grants, i.e. citizenship participation.
(c)	The association was established in September, 1970.
(d)	The aims and purposes of the organization, as they are stated in the original submission sent to the department, are: (i) to give ample opportunity for self-expression to London youth in a setting of care and friendship; (ii) to provide a contact and discussion centre for such youth to determine their own future without outside interference, in an atmosphere of co-operation with the greatest number of social agencies and organizations; (iii) to educate both the community at large in the problems of youth, as seen by themselves, and to educate these youth in the resources and areas available within the community.
(e)	A full report of their experience and the results of their work has been requested at the conclusion of four months.
2.	No other grants have been given under the Citizenship Development Program during this fiscal year specifically to enable "alienated youth" to become involved in society,-leaving aside grants awarded by the Opportunities for Youth program.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES COVERING FLQ KIDNAPPERS OF JAMES CROSS
Mr. Deakon: Was there any financial agreement entered into between Canada and Cuba with reference to the maintenance and support of the exiled kidnappers of James Cross and, if so, what was Canada's commitment?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. No, there was no such financial agreement or arrangement.


INDIAN CHILDREN-SCHOOL ATTENDANCE
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many Indian children attend elementary schools and how many attend secondary schools and of these how many are attending schools which are (a) purely Indian (h) integrated?
2.	How does the percentage of Indian students attending (a) elementarly schools (b) secondary schools compare with the per-

centage of the whole population attending elementary schools and secondary schools?
3. How many Indian students are attending universities or other advanced educational institutions?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Statistics
Canada as follows:			
1. In 1970-71			
	Indian Integrated		Total
Elementary Secondary * Special Courses	26,003 262 127	31,085 8,509 1,448	57,088 8,771 1,575
* Special courses are courses of three months duration or less not normally requiring high-school certificate.
2.	In so far as Indian students are concerned: (a) 84.7 per cent were attending elementary schools as of March 31, 1971. (b) 13 per cent were attending secondary schools as of March 31, 1971.
In so far as the whole student population attending elementary and secondary schools is concerned: (a) 73.6 per cent of the total school population were attending elementary schools in the 1969-70 school year, (b) 26.4 per cent of the total school population were attending secondary schools in the 1969-70 school year.
Figures are not available for the 1970-71 school year.
3.	As of March 31, 1971, enrolment of Indian students in universities or other advanced educational institutions was as follows: University 432 (This figure includes enrolment to summer courses Professional courses 601 (This figure includes courses in teaching and nursing)


INDIAN STUDENTS-SCHOOL ATTENDANCE
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How does the percentage of Indian students beginning secondary schools compare with the percentage of the whole population beginning secondary schools?
2.	How does the percentage of Indian students graduating from secondary schools compare with the percentage of the whole population graduating from secondary schools?


James Alexander Jerome: This identical question was asked on February 5, 1970 and the information provided was based on 1967-68 academic year, the last year for which the information was available. However, in so far as the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is concerned: 1. In 1969-70 approximately 90 per cent of Registered Indian Students enrolled in Grade 8, entered Grade 9 the following year.
2.	In 1969-70, approximately 69.8 per cent of Registered Indian Students who were enrolled in Grades 12 and 13 successfully completed the year.
In so far as Statistics Canada is concerned: 1. 97.8 per cent of the total number of students enrolled in grade 8 in 1968-69 were enrolled in grade 9 in 1969-70. Figures are not yet available for 1970-71.
March 1, 1972

2.	Statistics Canada does not have information on the number of students who graduated from secondary school.


LOSS OF EXPORTS AS A RESULT OF IMPOSITION OF UNITED STATES SURCHARGE
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What is the estimate by the government of the loss of exports (not the exports affected) by the imposition of the United States surcharge?
2.	What was the estimate of unemployment for the next 12 months made by the government before President Nixon imposed the ten percent surcharge?
3.	What is the present estimate of unemployment for the next 12 months made by the government?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Departments of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Finance as follows: 1. The survey carried out in August 1971, by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce of 1,300 firms affected by the surcharge suggested that the direct loss of export sales at annual rates could approach $400 million after three months, $700 million after six months and $900 million after one year. The Department has not attempted to assess the actual loss of affected exports in relation to these estimates because of the difficulty of isolating the effects of the surcharge from other factors which have influenced Canadian merchandise exports.
2.	and 3. The government does not provide specific quantitative official forecasts of the level of unemployment.


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-TECHNICAL COMMITTEE TO HELP SMALL FARMERS
Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 1.	On what date was the first meeting of a Technical Committee created by the Minister of Agriculture to deal with the development of a national program to help small farmers in Canada?
2.	Who are the members of this committee and how were they chosen?
3.	What specific matters will they consider and is this committee receiving representations?
4.	To whom will their recommendations be made and will their discussions be of a public or private nature?
5.	On what dates will they make an interim and a final report?
6.	What arrangements will be made for provincial and/or regional representation?
7.	What method will ensure consultation with farmers and the farming community in Canada?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. November 30th, 1971.
2. The committee members were chosen by the Ministers of Agriculture and are as follows: British Columbia, Mr. Maurice King; Alberta, Mr. J. W. Clarke; Saskatchewan, Mr. D. F. McArthur; Manitoba, Mr. W. P. Janssen; Ontario, Mr. K. E. Lantz; Quebec, Mr. Claude Simoneau; New Brusnwick, Mr. Raymond Scovil; Nova Scotia, Mr. Walter Grant; Prince Edward Island, Mr. Garry Ryle; Newfoundland, Mr. Gerry O'Riley.
Federal: Dr. R. P. Poirier, Dr. D. H. Plaunt, Mr. W. T. Burns, Mr. George Owen, and Mr. E. Carr.
Questions
3.	The technical committee is to suggest a method to reconcile the federal and provincial proposals for assisting low income farmers. It is to propose minimum acceptable levels within an agreed national framework. It will also make recommendations on methods of administrating this program. The committee will not be receiving representations.
4.	To a private meeting of federal and provincial ministers of Agriculture.
5.	A second meeting of the committee was held on December 21 and the final report will be drafted shortly.
6.	All provinces are represented on the committee.
7.	No formal direct method of consultation with farmers has been set up for the technical committee. Farmers' organizations were consulted in the process of developing the program.


P.E.I.-PRODUCTION OF CRANBERRIES
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	For each of the past ten years, what has been the total production of cranberries in Prince Edward Island?
2.	In each year, what was the estimated cash value of these crops?
3.	Has any branch or department of the Government of Canada been involved in providing assistance in research or marketing in respect to cranberry growing?
4.	Have any requests been received for such assistance and, if so, of what kind?
5.	What was the total estimated production of cranberries in Canada for each of the past ten years?
6.	What was the total cash value for each of the past ten years?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by Statistics Canada and the Department of Agriculture as follows: 1, 2, 5, and
6.	The following table provides figures for total production and estimated cash value of cranberries in Prince Edward Island and for all of Canada. Complete data for Prince Edward Island are not available as wild crops are being harvested and, therefore, production and value are to some extent, estimated.


CRANBERRIES
[Stage Direction]
P.E.I. 1. 2.		Canada 5. 6.	
Year	'000 lbs. (Production)	Value $000	'000 lbs. (Production)	Value *0001961	.. 60	5	719	1071962	.. 50	7	530	731963	.. 100	11	1,071	1671964	.. 15	2	1,040	1711965	-	-	1,550	2411966	-	-	1,797	2871967	-	-	2,437	3901968	.. 30	4	3,170	5211969	-	-	2,866	4701970	.. 35	4	5,922	7221971	.. 55	Not yet available	10,520	Not yet available
March 1, 1972
Questions
3.	A research grant of $3,600 was made for 1971-72 to The Nova Scotia Agricultural College, Truro, for a study entitled "Field Studies of Foxberry". This is a species closely related to cranberries. No requests or grants have been made for marketing studies on cranberries.
4.	An application is currently on file requesting a research grant of $8,000 for a study in 1972-73 at the University of Moncton (Department of Chemistry) on "Alcaloides de canneberges du Nouveau-Brunswick".

Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What part does the government play in giving certain fishing centres in Prince Edward Island the status of "designated ports"?
2.	What are the criteria governing such designations?
3.	What ports in Prince Edward Island have been so designated?
4.	For what reasons had Covehead not been designated under this program?
5.	What are the responsibilities of the government towards those ports not designated?
6.	What facilities, services or development are provided designated ports?
7.	What ports have been recommended by the Government of Prince Edward Island for such designation?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion as follows: 1. The federal-provincial agreement covering the Prince Edward Island Development Plan provides for the expansion of landing facilities to be concentrated in some 14-20 ports, which have become known as "designated ports".
2.	Recommendations for designation are made to the joint advisory board by the provincial government, after consultation with the fishing industry and federal and provincial departments of fisheries. Each case is decided on its merits.
3.	Tignish, Skinners Pond, Miminegash, Howards Cove, Abrams Village, Alberton, Rustico, Naufrage, North Lake, Grahams Pond, Murray Harbour, Malpeque and Morell.
4.	It has not been recommended by the province.
5.	Federal responsibilities would be those which it has for all marine facilities under its jurisdiction.
6.	Provision is made for adequate wharfage and harbour protection along with the following services on a fully commercial basis: (1) Storage capacity for bait; (2) Holding facilities for the catch; (3) Skidways to facilitate speedy repair.
7.	None in addition to those listed in three.


P.E.I.-CONSTRUCTION OF SUBMARINE CABLE
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Has the government or any Crown corporation given any undertaking to construct a submarine cable for the transmission of electric power to Prince Edward Island from the mainland?
2.	Has any research into this project been carried out and, if so, at what cost and over what period?
3.	What representations have been received for construction of such a cable?
4.	What is the estimated cost of such a cable?
5.	What are the estimated advantages of such a cable?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the department of Regional Economic Expansion as follows. 1. No. However, it has been included for possible consideration in phase 2 of the Prince Edward Island Comprehensive Development Plan.
2.	The cost and feasibility of a power cable connection from P.E.I. to the mainland was studied by the former Atlantic Development Board over the years 1963 to 1969, at a cost of $79,308 for consultants' services. This cost was divided between studies on the feasibility of a submarine cable, amounting to approximately $54,000, and the installation of the power cable link on the crossing structures of the proposed causeway to join the Island with the mainland, which amounted to approximately $25,000.
3.	Representations were made to the Atlantic Development Board by Premier Shaw on July 15, 1964 and by Premier Campbell on December 19,1967. Other provincial authorities requested that it be included in phase 2 of the P.E.I. Comprehensive Development Plan on March 7, 1969.
4.	The estimated cost of the submarine power cable inter-connection in 1968 was $6,829,000, based on costs scheduled to provide inservice by 1971.
5.	(a) P.E.I. would make arrangements for sales of any surplus capacity to mainland utilities during off peak periods, (b) Access to lower cost power and energy from sources within and outside the Maritime Power Pool, (c) Capital participation in large generating units on the mainland, with resultant savings in cost of power to P.E.I. (d) Access to potentially lower cost peaking capacity (hydro on the Maritime Power Pool).


TEMPORARY WHEAT RESERVES ACT-PAYMENTS MADE TO CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Burton: 1.	On what date were payments made to the Canadian Wheat Board under the terms of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act with respect to amounts due to the Board during the 1970-71 crop year?
2.	What was the total amount of the payment made with respect to the 1970-71 crop year and what was the number of bushels of wheat used in the calculation, the carrying charge per bushel and interest on amounts overdue?
3.	What was the amount of interest paid on amounts due with respect to the 1970-71 crop year and how was this amount calculated?
4.	What amount of the payments made with respect to the 1970-71 crop year was allocated to the Pool accounts for 1969-70 and 1970-71 respectively?
5.	On what date or dates were payments made to the Canadian Wheat Board under the terms of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act for the 1971-72 crop year and what amount was paid on each such occasion?
6.	What was the number of bushels of wheat and the carrying charge in cents per bushel used in calculating amounts due during the 1971-72 crop year?
7.	What interest has been paid on overdue amounts with respect to payments made for the 1971-72 crop year?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. October 13, 1971.

March 1, 1972

2 and 3. (i) $62,116,018.42; (ii) 284,587,046 bushels; (iii) .05980 cents per bushel per day; (iv) $2,658,999.04; (v) Interest was calculated on the basis of the rate paid by the Canadian Wheat Board to the chartered banks during the period August 1, 1970 to October 12, 1971.
4.	1969-70 pool account, $38,588,326.65; 1970-71 pool account, $23,527,691.77.
5.	(i) October 14, 1971, $7,710,000; (ii) November 9, 1971 $2,570,000.
6.	(i) 155,258,272 bushels; (ii) .05426 cents per bushel per day.
7.	Payments under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act are normally made after the end of each month for which payments are due. In the 1971-72 crop year payments for the months of October, and November were made to the Wheat Board in advance to offset any interest which might be said to have accrued for the current year.


PRESIDENT OF STANDARDS COUNCIL OF CANADA
Mr. Skoberg: 1.	What is the name of the President of the Standards Council of Canada?
2.	What are his responsibilities?
3.	What remunerations, honoraria or other payments does he receive from the government?
4.	Is the incumbent a member of the board of directors of any companies and, if so, what are the names of those companies?


Mr. Bruce Howard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. Brigadier General Jean P. Carriere.
2.	To ensure that the Standards Council of Canada carries out the objects set out in the Standards Council of Canada Act with respect to fostering and promoting voluntary standardization in Canada and Canadian participation in international standardization activities.
3.	$150 for each day that he is engaged in the performance of his duties as President of the Standards Council of Canada and travelling expenses arising in the course of his duties.
4.	Brigadier General Carriere is a member of the board of directors of the following companies: Mutual Life Assurance Company of Canada; Combined Engineered Products Ltd.; Canadian Oxygen (1963) Limited; Bell Asbestos Mines Ltd.; Canadian Stebbins Engrg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd.; and Franki Canada Limited.


MILITARY AIR ATTACHES
Mr. MacLean: 1.	How many military attaches of other countries, including air and navy, were stationed in Ottawa in (a) 1961 (b) 1971?
2.	What countries were represented by these attaches in each case?
3.	Over this period of time has Canada (a) refused to accept attaches from any country and, if so, what countries (b) suggested to any country having an embassy in Canada that it would be preferable that their staff did not include a military attache and, if so, which countries?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. (a) 35; (b) 34.
Orders for Returns
2.	(a) Belgium, Britain (11), Czechoslovakia, France, Germany (2), Italy, Netherlands, Poland (2), Spain, Turkey, USSR (5), U.S.A. (6), and Venezuela (2). (b) Argentina, Brazil, Britain (10), Chile, Czechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Malaysia, Netherlands, Poland (2), Spain, Turkey, USSR (4), U.S.A. (4), Venezuela (2).
3.	The answer to both (a) and (b) is yes, but it would not be in the public interest to disclose the details.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. McCleave: 1.	What shipments of commodities, equipment, food and international emergency relief were made by the Canadian International Development Agency during 1971?
2.	From what ports or airports were such shipments made?
3.	Which brokers arranged the shipments?
4.	What vessels or other transportation means were used on the hauls out of Canada?
Return tabled.


FOREIGN SPRAY AIRCRAFT ENGAGED IN WESTERN CANADA
Mr. Nesbitt: 1.	Were any duties or taxes levied on the earnings of foreign spray aircraft engaged in Bertha Army worm control in western Canada last August and, if so, what was the number of foreign aircraft paying taxes or duties?
2.	What were the names of the owners and/or operators of the foreign aircraft referred to in Part 1?
3.	What were the foreign registration markings on these aircraft?
4.	Were any foreign non-duty paid aircraft operated commercially on this project?
5.	Did the following United States registered aircraft (a) N996X (b) N5251 (c) N8665L (d) N8668L (e) N8556L (f) N7257V participate in the Bertha Army worm project in Saskatchewan and, if so, were they duty paid?
6.	Were any duties received from a Mr. Beattie of Tisdale, Saskatchewan on behalf of Singleton Flying Service of Port Pierre, South Dakota?
Return tabled.


COMPANIES MANUFACTURING THREAD USED IN PRODUCTION OF TEXTILES
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	Is the thread used in the production of textiles in Canada manufactured in Canada and, if so, what are the names and addresses of the manufacturers?
2.	Are these companies capable of manufacturing sufficient amounts of thread to meet the needs of Canadian textile plants?
3.	During each of the past three years, did any companies obtain grants from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion or Industry, Trade and Commerce and, if so, which companies?
422

March 1, 1972
Motion to Adjourn
4.	During each of the past three years, did any Canadian companies import thread for the manufacture of their products and, if so (a) from what countries (b) in what quantities (c) at what cost?
Return tabled.


PURCHASE OF DEFENCE COMMODITIES BY FOREIGN COUNTRIES, 1965 TO 1970
Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 1.	What defence commodities were purchased from Canada in the years 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969 and 1970 by (a) Brazil (b) Burma (c) Pakistan (d) Portugal (e) United States (f) Greece (g) Republic of South Africa (h) Spain?
2.	How does the government determine on a continuing basis that defence commodities are not resold to other countries, organizations and individuals?
3.	What penalties are invoked for the violation of such resale agreements?
Return tabled.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should have raised it immediately following written questions but I missed the opportunity to do so.
In regard to Question No. 156 presently on the order paper having to do with Canada's observance of International Book Year, I would like to lodge a complaint once again about the erosion of the effectiveness of written questions in this House. I first placed this question on the order paper in the last session on December 14.
It was not answered up to the time the session died in February. I again placed it on the order paper on February 22, and again it has not been answered. However, in its place there was issued from the minister's department last night a news release having to do with some aspects of this question. It seems that the government finds it easier to issue press releases than to submit written answers to members' questions in the context of the rules and procedures of this House.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION ALLEGED CONFLICT OF INTEREST OF CERTAIN MEMBERS OF INDUSTRIAL INCENTIVES ADVISORY BOARD

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the potential for conflict of interest involved in the dispensing of many millions of dollars of public funds to private corporations under the Regional Development Incentives Act on advice to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion of the Industrial Incentives Advisory Board, whose members include two executive officers of corporations that received five grants totalling $6.9 million.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Regina East has filed the notice required under the provisions of Standing Order 26. In essence, what the hon. member proposes is that the House adjourn under the terms of Standing Order 26 for the purpose of debating a policy of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion or of the government in relation to the Industrial Incentives Advisory Board.
It seems to me that Standing Order 26 is not intended to provide an opportunity for debate on such a general and wide question of policy. The hon. member is aware of the terms of subsection 16 of Standing Order 26 to the effect that the matter proposed for discussion must relate to a genuine emergency. It would seem that the matter raised by the hon. member for Regina East does not meet this test and in the circumstances his proposed motion cannot be put.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 7 is acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents and to the authorization of the government authorities concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that notice of motion No. 7 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



COPY OF CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN MANITOBA AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RELATING TO NELSON RIVER POWER PROJECT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 7-Mr. Faulkner:
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 between the Government of Manitoba and the Government of Canada relating to the Nelson River Power Project to date during 1971.
Motion agreed to.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Woolliams:: Mr. Speaker, with respect to Notices of Motions Nos. 6 and 15 dealing with the Geoffroy case, since we have been denied a judicial inquiry to date may I ask when we may get an answer with respect to the production of these papers? These notices of motions have been on the order paper since the beginning of the session. I do not think there should be much difficulty producing the documents in reference to the passport that were forged. Neither should there be difficulty in producing the documents in reference to the other matters that the Solicitor General did not disclose the other day.

March 1, 1972


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, just before the beginning of today's session I spoke to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General (Mr. Hogarth) who will be having some conversation with the hon. member later today about this matter.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. Arising out of the answer to the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) yesterday that negotiations with the postal unions have not yet reached a point where wages and job security have been discussed, and in view of the intense public concern about strikes in important services of this sort, has the President of the Treasury Board any explanation to give the House why negotiations have not even commenced with regard to wages and job security although the wage contract is to expire on March 27?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As is traditional in these matters, the representatives of the employees would prefer to take first, in the period of negotiations, the easiest items. In a contract composed of a very considerable number of articles, nearly all of which have been opened by the unions for negotiation, they have started, as is traditional, with the easier ones, leaving the harder ones for later.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the collective agreement expires on March 27, and as I understand that Treasury Board has now received a proposal from the unions with regard to both wages and job security, can the President of the Treasury Board indicate when the government will make a response to these proposals from the unions?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think that rather than try to set a particular date at which a response would be made, I can reassure the hon. gentleman that we will proceed in the most orderly way to deal with the issues as originally agreed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I wish to ask one further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the track record of the Treasury Board with regard to negotiations in recent times-


Mr. MacEachen:: It is an excellent one.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -I have to ask the President of the Treasury Board whether he intends to make a response before or after the expiry of the collective agreement or whether he proposes to let things drag on so long that the issues can only be finally settled by a strike?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think I can assure the hon. gentleman that there will be a government proposal both with respect to wages and job security before the expiry of the current contract.



PUBLIC SERVICE STAFF RELATIONS ACT


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a related question to the President of the Treasury Board. In light of the fact that negotiations proceed as set out by the Public Service Staff Relations Act, and that this leaves much to be desired in the sense that there seems to be more confrontation than negotiation during periods of negotiation between the Treasury Board and representatives of the Public Service, is the government seriously considering bringing in amendments to the act in order to improve the procedures and, if so, when can we expect some idea as to its intentions?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I do share most heartily the view of the hon. gentleman that there has developed over the years rather more of a technique of confrontation than real negotiation, and it is our hope to reverse that trend. However, this takes time to do, and I am not sure that merely the introduction of hasty legislation would bring about in a satisfactory way the resolution of this particular problem. This is something which can only be developed by agreement.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to know that the minister is as concerned as I am about it, but would he answer my question and advise me whether in fact the government is delving into this matter in order that legislation can be brought forward? I think it is high time that the whole act was reviewed in view of the confrontation rather than negotiation that exists-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has asked a question. The minister may want to reply briefly so we can go on to the next subject.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: As I said a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, we are very much concerned about this and are first endeavouring to discover what is a better arrangement and how best it can be brought about. I am not convinced that legislation in the next month or so would be the answer.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Has he considered the potential conflict of interest involved in the fact that four members of the Industrial Incentives Advisory Board are prominent
25020-28S

March 1, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
members of the business community, and has he satisfied himself that there is no potential conflict of interest? In particular, has he investigated the circumstances surrounding grants in 1971 totalling $6.9 million to Noranda Mines Limited, Gaspe Copper Mines Limited and National Sea Products Limited, whose executive officers are members of the advisory board?


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker, because when we made regulations concerning this matter, this aspect held our attention for quite a long time. It is very difficult to find businessmen who are not, at a certain time, directly or indirectly concerned with requests addressed to our department.
So, we made a regulation under which people who are directly or indirectly concerned with a request submitted to the department or one of its decisions are not to take part in the discussions of the committee, and have nothing to say concerning the decision.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, would the minister be willing to have this matter referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development so that it could receive thorough study and examination, particularly in view of the very glib manner in which the department has dealt with the matter?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am not very much concerned with this, but I believe that votes will be submitted to the House and referred to the committee. I shall then be prepared to answer all questions. There is actually nothing to make a fuss about and there is no hushed scandal.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, a moment or so ago the minister indicated that those who were representing management on the advisory board would not of course be involved in the granting of loans. Looking over the record of the advisory board, may I ask whether the minister is aware that Mr. Kendall Cork, who is on that board, indicated that he did not miss any meetings and yet Noranda Mines Limited got several millions of dollars in grants when he was vice-president?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I should like it to be clearly established that the committee takes no decision with regard to government subsidies. Decisions are made within the department by duly authorized personnel. The committee merely exercises a sort of supervision. That is all, period.



LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-PAYMENT OF GRANTS TO POLITICAL ORGANIZERS

Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.

Do the regulations he mentioned a while ago include a provision forbidding the granting of subsidies, through the local initiatives program, to political organizers who are playing politics?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this does not fall within my jurisdiction.



MANPOWER


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
Can he tell us whether or not it might not be wise to look into the application of the local initiatives program seeing we are told that a large number of projects are turned down for lack of funds, and that urgent achievable projects should be accepted?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I had some difficulty in hearing the question. I shall take it as notice and reply directly to the hon. member.



LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-GRANTS TO GROUPS ASSOCIATED WITH ROCHDALE COLLEGE

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister in view of the absence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and his parliamentary secretary. At the first opportunity will the Acting Prime Minister arrange to have a statement made on motions giving all details of the local initiatives program grants to groups and/or projects either located in or associated with Rochdale College in Toronto totalling $277,000, with particular reference to the grant of $25,900 to a group known as The Process of the Final Judgment for the alleged purpose of "expanding a program to test the resources of young people," when this group is widely reported to promote devil worship with attendant rites and rituals, and also with particular reference to-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That must be the Liberals.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: -a group known as Crunch-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should ask the question quickly. It seems to me that questions ought to be shorter than the one the hon. member is presenting to the House now. He should indicate what the question is as succinctly as possible.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but I could not hear Your Honour as there was certain extraneous conversation.


Mr. Speaker:: I am inviting the hon. member to put his question.
March 1, 1972


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I thought I had made it fairly clear, Your Honour, and I think the Acting Prime Minister perhaps heard the substance of the question. I just wish to add, with particular reference to other groups known as Crunch and Commune-iton Collective.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary, or at least-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might allow a reply, and then he can ask a supplementary. We could start with the answer to that question and then go to the supplementary.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, and when he is here tomorrow he will be very happy to reply in detail. However, since one particular question was asked I thought I should take the opportunity of replying immediately. I saw the headline in the Toronto Sun, from which I think the hon. member got his report, dealing with the so-called Satan organization. May I point out to him that the plan for which application had been made was endorsed by such groups as the YMCA, the mental retardation centre-


Mr. Hees:: That is understandable.


An hon. Member:: Is that the government?


An hon. Member:: The Privy Council office?


Gerald William Baldwin: The Liberal party from Eglinton.


Mitchell William Sharp: -and in the same category, the Department of Health of Ontario, the Toronto Doctors Hospital and, if that is not sufficiently respectable, the Bank of Montreal.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question. I just ask the Acting Prime Minister, who is apparently a little nervous about this question-


Mitchell William Sharp: Oh, no!


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Perhaps the Acting Prime Minister would also arrange to have one of his colleagues inform the House of the reasons for turning down a grant to the Salvation Army branch on Lisgar Street in Toronto for assistance to the unemployed. As far as devil worship is concerned, it does not surprise me that they endorse it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In relation to the question asked by the hon. member may I say that normally questions relating to individual applications, unless in very special circumstances, ought to be placed on the order paper. I appreciate that in some instances there might be special circumstances, but as much as possible individual inquiries ought to be placed on the order paper or considered at the time of adjournment. I would point out to hon. members that we are running behind time.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: They should send the Prime Minister a long spoon for his dinner tonight.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Does the Acting Prime Minister think it is appropriate for the government of Canada
Inquiries of the Ministry
to give $26,000 in public funds to devil worshippers regardless of who recommends them?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that is a point of argument. The hon. member for Trinity is inviting the Acting Prime Minister to express an opinion.



LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE EXAMINATION OF GRANTS

John Howard Lundrigan: In order to facilitate matters of this nature in the House, Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Acting Prime Minister or the House leader who was earlier in the House or the parliamentary secretary when he returns from behind the curtain, if they will consider a reference to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration so that grants such as the one to the worshippers of Satan and other such eminent organizations alluded to by the hon. member for Oxford could be examined. In this way we could determine the basis for such decisions and recommend a set guidelines in order to give the representatives of the Canadian people more control over the dispensation of the taxpayers' dollar.


Mitchell William Sharp: When the estimates for this department are before the committee there will be ample opportunity, and I am sure the minister and his parliamentary secretary will be able to satisfy hon. members.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members in large numbers are again seeking to ask supplementaries. We will be running short of time and should give an opportunity to other members to ask questions.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question to the Secretary of State.
Since the Duhamel report on bilingual districts was tabled in the House nine months ago already, and since Official Languages Commissioner Keith Spicer stated recently that it was difficult to act as an ombudsman regarding official languages as long as the government will not proclaim the establishment of bilingual districts, could the minister tell us if the government intends to do so?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the matter is under consideration by the cabinet.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Could the minister tell the House whether the establishment of bilingual districts will be made before the next federal election?

M arch 1, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member wishes to direct a supplementary question.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, could the minister tell the House why the government has delayed nine months the establishment of bilingual districts, since they are essential if the Languages Commissioner is to administer the government program, that is the Official Languages Act?


Gérard Pelletier: One of the reasons, Mr. Speaker, is that we had committed ourselves to hold consultations with the provinces, and we did so. I could give several other reasons, but it is not a proclamation which can be made lightly. The government wanted to be quite careful in establishing those districts, especially since available figures dated from 1961.



NATIONAL PARKS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and concerns the situation at Lake Louise in Banff National Park where a projected $30 million resort centre is being set up, to be operated by Imperial Oil which is 60 per cent owned by Americans, and Lake Louise Lifts Limited. It encompasses the gradual elimination of facilities near Lake Louise, including the removal of Chateau Lake Louise. I ask the minister whether, technically, any agreement in this regard has been made. Second, since such an agreement, if made, would be detrimental, does he not believe that one of the finest resorts in all the world, in a national park, should not be turned over to a private company?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the matter is under consideration. We have made up plans to hold public hearings on that problem. The public hearings will be held in Calgary next week and all persons concerned may attend. It will be only after those public hearings that a decision will be taken by the government.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would the minister say why it was that, with its strong anti-American attitude with respect to investment, the government would even consider permitting Imperial Oil to get so much control over this park? Second, will he not have this matter brought before parliament so that this magnificent park will not be destroyed by bureaucratic considerations?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon. member that the government is not ashamed of its conservation policy. It has created ten new national parks in Canada within four years. When the hon. member was himself Prime Minister, he did not establish a single one-

[English1


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: My question was not answered, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that the minister should be given the opportunity to reply to the question. I invite him to do this rather than enter into debate. The minister has the floor. Then, I will recognize the right hon. gentleman for a supplementary.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, this project was allowed to develop after public tenders were called. There were many groups invited to make proposals, but this was the only proposition made when we called for tenders. We are considering it. However, before a decision is made may I point out that public hearings will be held in Alberta and they are starting next week.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I did not ask about tenders. I asked a question about the most beautiful park in Canada, a park which this government is trying to sell out to private interests.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggested a moment ago that there should not be debate between the right hon. gentleman and the minister.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I should not let this thing go too easily. There has been skiing in the lower Lake Louise area for many years. It was begun a long time before this government took over in 1963.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: That does not justify selling out that part of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that is not a question of privilege. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Skeena, who I believe has a supplementary, and then the hon. member for Yukon who also has a supplementary.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, surely we should be permitted to answer the question of privilege raised by the minister. We should be free to do that. He raised a question of privilege relating to the lower Lake Louise area and suggested that there was no free enterprise there. These free enterprises spent $5 million there, and the government knows it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again I suggest to the minister that he did not have a question of privilege. I was hoping that he would not start a debate, which is obviously what we are doing. I remind hon. members that the question period is quickly running out. If we are to make progress, we should move more quickly and not spend ten minutes on each question. The hon. member for Skeena on a supplementary.
March 1, 1972



THE BUDGET


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance about a subject that I am sure is burning in his mind every hour of the day. Can he tell the House when he is going to present his first and, I hope, his last budget?


John Napier Turner: I cannot, Mr. Speaker, but I can assure the hon. gentleman that we will survive as long as he does.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's supplementary did not refer to the question previously being considered. I did not appreciate that his supplementary was not related to the question asked by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. I will recognize the hon. member for Yukon, who I believe has a supplementary to that particular question.



NATIONAL PARKS


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I was glad to hear the minister say that public hearings are to be held into the question of private enterprise incursions into the Lake Louise area of Banff National Park. Would he refer the matter of the establishment of the three northern national parks which he recently announced to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development so that conservationists and industry might be heard with respect to boundaries and other park problems?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, my department's estimates will be referred to the committee in the near future, and if hon. members then wish to ask me some questions on the matter, I will be pleased to answer them.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question really is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Regina East. In the absence of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, may I direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. Can the Acting Prime Minister tell the House whether any conflict of interest is involved between grants given by DREE to Falconbridge Nickel Mines, IBM, Union Carbide and Westinghouse totalling over $12 million and the announced plans by these compa-
Inquiries of the Ministry
nies to book tables for today's Liberal fund raising dinner in Toronto?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member no doubt appreciates that a question asked in those terms is not in order. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.


George Harris Hees: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The minister to whom I wished to direct my question, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, has fled from the House so I will wait.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General of Canada took notice of a question of mine the other day.


An hon. Member:: Hurrah!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I asked whether he had been
approached directly or indirectly about a new trial for Geoffroy under certain conditions. As I say, he took the question as notice. I now ask whether he has been approached indirectly, either by one of his associates or by anyone else, and how has he been approached? Was it by telephone or by a conference in his office? If so, who was with him and in what manner was he approached?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the use of the word "indirectly" may, as used by the hon. member, be misleading, although I think the word was contained in his earlier question. What I meant in my earlier reply was that at that point I had no personal knowledge of any such contact. I have since checked the matter with my department and they have received no communication on this subject. So there has been no communication with my department or with me on this subject.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, the other day I asked whether the Solicitor General-and I appreciate the niceties of the question-had approached the Minister of Justice, because he says that somebody had contacted him. I want to know from the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, whether any conversation took place in regard to this, what that conversation was, and who contacted the ministers of the Crown in question?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I believe that when this question was put to the Solicitor General he replied. As to the matter of any contact with him I know, although ordinarily we do not make comments about communications between members of the Privy Council on matters like this, that the simple answer is no, flatly; there was no conversation between the Solicitor General and myself.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the parliamentary secretary a question about an answer given by the Solicitor General. I had hoped he would be here today. The Solicitor General mentioned, in answering my ques-

March 1, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
tion, that he had been contacted by a person in relation to a new trial for Geoffroy, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Criminal Code. In what manner was the minister contacted? Was it by telephone or by letter? Also, is he now prepared to divulge to the House the name of that person, the contents of that conversation and what took place?


Mr. Douglas A. Hogarth (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice.



RELEASE OF YVES GEOFFROY FROM ST. VINCENT DE   PAUL PENITENTIARY-SUGGESTED MEETING BETWEEN MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND MR. RICHER

Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Justice.
Considering that Mr. Albert-Paul Richer, a known investigator, stated yesterday that he could guarantee the return of Mr. Geoffroy within 24 hours if the Solicitor General assured Mr. Geoffroy that he would have a new trial, would the Minister of Justice comment on this statement or assure the House that he will get in touch with its author to discuss it with him?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that, although I have seen these reports on the matter, I have no personal knowledge of them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member for Sainte-Marie on a last supplementary on this subject, because we shall soon be running short of time.



RELEASE OF YVES GEOFFROY FROM ST. VINCENT DE PAUL PENITENTIARY-INQUIRY AS TO PRESENT WHEREABOUTS

Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Acting Prime Minister.
Pursuant to Mr. Richer's statement that he could locate Mr. Geoffroy within 48 hours, could the minister tell us if he now knows where Mr. Geoffroy is and under what name did he leave Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, with regard to questions directed to the Solicitor General and what people may have said to him, I think these questions should properly be directed to him. I have no personal knowledge and neither has the Minister of Justice. The Solicitor General will be in the House and he has told me he will be very happy to answer these questions.
With regard to the second question about the passport, I should inform the House that at ten o'clock today charges were laid against Madame Geoffroy nee Parent. Four charges were laid: false declaration in order to obtain a passport, possession of a false passport, counterfeiting, and the use of counterfeit documents. These charges were

laid at ten o'clock this morning before Mr. Justice Emorand.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I again suggest to hon. members that for the moment we go on to the next subject. The hon. member for Fraser Valley West.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have now had some answers. Ministers come and go as if they were playing a game of musical chairs. If we do not ask the questions today we will not have the ministers here tomorrow. As far as I am concerned, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has made an important statement. We would like to know if these people are under arrest, what they are doing and so on.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I think we are entitled to an answer.


Mr. Speaker:: The point made by the hon. member for Calgary North may be well taken. Until we return to this question, I thought we might give other hon. members an opportunity to ask questions. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Fraser Valley West and return to this matter in a moment.


Gerald William Baldwin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can we not regard the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs as a statement on motions and give hon. members an opportunity to respond to it?



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: I wish to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. During the negotiations between Treasury Board and the occupational groups in the operational category of the Public Service, has Treasury Board been bargaining for the acceptance by the operational category of regional rather than national pay scales?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The
answer to that, Mr. Speaker, is in the affirmative. It has been the policy of successive governments to move from a scheme of national scales of wage rates to ones which are more appropriate and more commensurate with local operating conditions.


Mark Willson Rose: Since the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is engaged in spending millions of public dollars in an effort to reduce regional disparity, is the Treasury Board's posture on regional pay rates not entirely contradictory to that of DREE?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that this is argument and to that extent the question is not in order.
March 1, 1972



USE OF REGIONAL RATHER THAN NATIONAL PAY SCALES IN BARGAINING-POSITION OF FORMER GOVERNMENTS

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the President of the Treasury Board a supplementary question arising out of his statement that this has been the policy of successive governments. How many governments in Canada have been moving away from the national scale policy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure whether this question was presented in the form of an argument. I may have misunderstood the question asked by the hon. member. If I did misunderstand, the minister may reply to it briefly. He will be recognized for that purpose.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, as collective bargaining has only been in operation since 1967, the answer is two.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Both Liberal.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In light of the statement just made by the Acting Prime Minister, and I want to do this properly, from the investigation that has been made is the minister now able to report progress in ascertaining where' Geoffroy escaped to, what plane he took, if any, who accompanied him and if he is residing in a nation where extradition would apply? The minister told us today that the lady in question is being charged with certain offences. Was that done because of knowledge it will be possible to bring these people back to justice?


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Will the member for Calgary South keep quiet.


Mitchell William Sharp: Broadly speaking, Mr. Speaker, I think the answer to the question is yes. We are very anxious to get Geoffroy and his wife back-Mr. Geoffroy back in prison and Madame Geoffroy to stand trial on the accusations which have been made.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am sorry, I did not hear. There was a little noise. Did I understand the minister to say he has knowledge where these people are and, through the administration of justice, is in the act of having them returned to Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I said I agreed with the hon. member that we are trying to get them back. I do not personally know, and I do not know whether the police in the course of their investigation want to reveal their suspicions, because their desire, of course, is not to feed public curiosity but to get the Geoffroys back.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Erik Nielsen: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that these four counts have been laid against Madame Geoffroy, can the Secretary of State for External Affairs advise the House whether a warrant for her arrest has been issued and whether such warrant is Canada-wide?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there has been a-

A warrant for his arrest was also issued.



RELEASE OF YVES GEOFFROY FROM ST. VINCENT DE PAUL PENITENTIARY- SUGGESTION THAT MR. RICHER BE CONTACTED

Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Following the statement he just made, would the minister say if consecutive to Mr. Richer's assertion reported in today's newspapers his department has tried to arrange a meeting with Mr. Richer or has given any instructions to this effect in order to find out exactly where the fugitives are?


Mitchell William Sharp: The
answer is no, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Ricard:: You are not trying to get him.



RELEASE OF YVES GEOFFROY FROM ST. VINCENT DE PAUL PENITENTIARY-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF PASSPORT APPLICATION AND RELATED CORRESPONDENCE

John George Diefenbaker: I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he will table in the House the passport application for Geoffroy under whatever pseudonym he appeared so that we can find out who was the guarantor? Also, will he table the correspondence showing the address to which the passport was sent and any correspondence with the department in which Mr. Denis of Rivard fame participated? I ask this because once charges are laid the government might very well suggest that we cannot discuss this matter any more. If the minister will just table these documents, no harm will be done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The minister may wish to reply to the question, but I remind hon. members there are only three minutes remaining in the question period. I see that some of our distinguished colleagues are getting very impatient.


Mitchell William Sharp: May I
reply briefly, Mr. Speaker, and say to the right hon. gentleman that I would like to give consideration to his question.


An hon. Member:: I bet you would.


Mitchell William Sharp: It is a serious question. There are aspects of it that I do not think the right hon. gentleman quite

March 1, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
appreciates. If he did know, he might be sympathetic to the point of view of the government.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, we have waited ten days and nothing has been indicated to cause me to extend sympathy to the government in connection with this matter.



MANPOWER


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Finance.
Can he tell us whether the government has considered the possibility of transferring funds allocated for the implementation of group local initiative projects to municipal local initiative projects, in view of the fact that several municipalities feel frustrated because of the rejection of some highly worthwhile projects they have submitted.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we shall take the question under advisement.
the boxcars which might have gone to that system to another system? May I ask the Minister of Labour whether there was consideration given to waiving the normal five month period in order to provide notice of severance of employment to all those Federal grain employees who will be affected? Was a waiver granted by his department?


Abram Ernest Epp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, a waiver was granted early in February of the group termination notice under certain terms and conditions, to which the company agreed, which were deemed to fulfil the intent of the act and in the light of an alternative plan proposed by the company with respect to its employees which in many respects went beyond the provisions of the requirements of the code.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Peace River before calling orders of the day.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


[Stage Direction]
*
*

Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice as minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In the light of the proposed takeover by the pools of the Federal Grain Company facilities, is it intended that the boxcars which would have been allocated to the Federal elevator system will be turned over to the pool system after the takeover?


Otto Emil Lang: The ordinary practice in the event of an exchange of elevators is, I believe, for the portion of the boxcars allocated to those elevators to go along. I expect this will be the procedure in this case. There are some serious questions in relation to congested elevators and particularly facets of the formula, which are under consideration in relation to this recent development.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will be allowed one supplementary because we are getting very close to the end of the question period.


Stanley James Korchinski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious matter. It will come to a head on March 10, and I think it should be cleared up before then. In light of the fact that the pools are only buying the facilities, not the farmers, will the minister consider allocating some of


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the leader of the House whether he would not facilitate the organizational meeting of the Public Accounts Committee so that the committee can complete its examination of the report upon which it is now engaged- it is now almost a year behind-so that the next report of the Auditor General, which is shortly to be made, can be taken up by the committee when it has completed its present survey?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Certainly, we shall be happy to facilitate the organization meeting of the Public Accounts Committee and to give it every encouragement to pursue its work.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



AIRPORTS


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I realize you have had a heavy day on questions, but I have a very important question which I think should be asked in view of what appeared in the press this morning. I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he is in a position to make an official announcement about a new auxiliary airport for Toronto.


Mr. Speaker:: The House might with to permit the minister to reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Wellington. As I said, we have reached the end of the question period, but the question having been asked the minister might with to reply briefly. I will then call orders of the day again.

March 1, 1972


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: I suppose I could be extremely brief and answer by saying no. However, I should like to provide a little additional information. Negotiations with the province of Ontario are proceeding, I think I can say, at a very rapid rate and I would hope to be in a position very shortly to make the announcement to which the hon. member refers.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. In this morning's Globe and Mail there appeared an article stating that the airport would be located in the Claremont district near Pickering, Ontario. We have been asking questions about this new airport for two years. The minister gave the House an assurance that he would make the announcement in the House in due time. He said that two weeks ago today. Now there has been the announcement in the press about its location and I think we, as members of this House, are entitled to be told in this chamber whether this is the location or not, and why an announcement was not made simultaneously yesterday when it was apparently announced in the Ontario legislature.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am not sure what my privileges are in these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, but if that can be taken as a question I could answer that the story today, as far as I am concerned, is merely one of a long series of speculative stories. I do know, as a matter of fact, that no announcement has been made in the Ontario legislature.


Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Wellington is really asking a series of questions after we have reached the moment to call orders of the day. This, I suggest to him, is irregular. I stretched a point by allowing him to ask a question by way of a point of order, and the minister replied. Then the hon. member asked a supplementary which questioned the minister's answer. If it is the wish of all hon. members, perhaps the hon. member for Wellington might be allowed a further supplementary.


Alfred Dryden Hales: My supplementary would be this, Your Honour: Is this the location which has been selected or is it not? It has been announced that this is to be the location. I want to know whether that is correct or not.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I think it is perfectly obvious that I cannot be asked to confirm or deny a press report. I can only say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I have consistently respected this House. I have made a commitment that any official announcement will be made in this chamber and I reaffirm that commitment by saying I shall do so at the earliest possible moment after negotiations have been concluded with the province of Ontario.


Mr. Simpson:: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. It is based on the fact that for four days I have waited to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. On two of those days he was supposed to be in the House according to the roster system. Today, since the question is urgent, I intended to direct it to the Minister of National Revenue because he, too, has some responsibility for the Canada Pension Plan. Before the end of the question period the Minister of National Revenue left the House. Surely, if we are compelled to operate
Inquiries of the Ministry
under a roster system, with very few ministers attending, at least the ones supposed to be here in accordance with that system should be obliged to be here and, when they do attend, to remain for the whole of the question period.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Howard Lundrigan: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in order to assist the House. In view of the fact that we have a limited time during the question period, in view of the fact that in the future I can foresee many questions on the local initiatives program, and bearing in mind that perhaps the Acting Prime Minister did not realize the significance of the request to refer that program to the Standing Committee on Manpower and Immigration, I should like to know whether it is in order to raise with the leader of the House the need for a specific reference to the committee of the local initiatives program with a direction to report to the House on guidelines and principles which could be recommended to the House and perhaps approved. This is quite different from a reference of the estimates which does not provide for such an investigation or report.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again, this is somewhat irregular. If the President of the Privy Council wishes to reply briefly, I suppose he might be allowed to do so but we have now exceeded the question period by ten minutes. There is, of course, no authority for allowing members to ask questions after the expiry of the question period unless by unanimous consent of the House. But I would not want to complicate matters. If the President of the Privy Council can reply briefly he might do so, and we shall again try to get on with the business of the House.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I shall be brief and advise the hon. member that in my opinion the efforts of the committee would be quite as successful in any case, since with the authority granted to the committees to study the estimates there would be no necessity for any special reference.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


John Stratford Burton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier in the question period I asked a question about a serious potential conflict of interest on the part of members of the Industrial Incentives Advisory Board. In view of the seriousness of this matter and, I am sure, the desire on the part of all hon. members to see the matter cleared up as soon as possible, I wonder whether we could have some indication from the government House leader, since the Acting Prime Minister has now left the chamber, whether the government would be prepared to table the minutes of all meetings of the Industrial Incentives Advisory Board-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again I suggest to hon. members that it is an abuse of the rules to attempt on points of order to ask questions which might legitimately have been asked during the question period. Hon. members know that there are 40 minutes allotted to the question period. If from day to day considerable time is spent on one particular subject or another, be that subject very important, then some other questions, also important, will have to be set aside. Today I was anxious to recognize the hon. member for Churchill, the hon. member for Dart-

March 1, 1972
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
mouth-Halifax East, who rose at the beginning of the question period, and the hon. member for Algoma. We should try to keep that in mind if we are to give all hon. members the opportunity of asking questions, or at least to give more hon. members the opportunity of asking questions during the question period. The matter raised by the hon. member for Regina East might be raised again, and I will try to give him an opportunity to do so during the question period tomorrow.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John Napier Turner: that Bill C-8, to authorize the making of certain fiscal payments to provinces, to authorize the entry into tax collection agreements with provinces, and to amend the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill now before the House is the cornerstone in the structure of federal-provincial fiscal relationships in Canada. It is the key to effective co-operation in income tax policy across the country. It defines the mechanism for the sharing of revenues from this all important tax field. It provides for equalization transfers beginning at $1 billion a year. It gives real meaning, through these equalization transfers, as well as real substance to our ideals of national unity in a federal state. It contributes to stable economic growth by protecting all the provinces, whether those provinces be rich or poor, against the adverse effects of a sharp reduction in provincial revenues. It brings the aid of the broad federal taxing power to help the provinces in one of their most significant responsibilities, namely the financing of higher or post-secondary education.
More generally, it sets out the interrelated pattern of fiscal arrangements which support a high average standard of public services for all Canadians, no matter the province in which they live. Added to that, the bill, I believe, provides the flexibility necessary to adapt national objectives to regional and local conditions. For all these reasons I feel confident that the bill, after a thorough debate, will commend itself to the House.
Because of the division of powers under the British North America Act and the great differences in wealth among the provinces, the debate about federal-provincial relations is as old as this country. One hundred and five years ago Sir John A. Macdonald and his colleagues thought that they had worked out a satisfactory and binding financial arrangement under the terms of the British North America Act. They thought that this arrangement would underpin the new Canada. Almost before the constitutional ink was dry, financial pressure upon certain of the new provinces forced fiscal readjustment. Indeed, as early as 1873 special federal grants, which were the fore-

runner of today's equalization grants, were already being paid to the governments of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and British Columbia.
Subsequently, for 60 years the pattern of federal-provincial financial terms continued to evolve from decade to decade, from royal commission to royal commission, from conference to conference, from one ad hoc "final settlement", so-called, to another. But the misery, the widespread suffering of the great depression of the thirties, followed by the challenges of the second world war, brought about revolutionary changes in thinking about public finance in a federal state like Canada.
The landmark 1940 report of the Rowell-Sirois commission advanced at least three central concepts which have governed a great deal of thinking on federal-provincial fiscal relations since that time. The first was that the federal government has an over-riding financial role in the pursuit of national growth and stability. The second was that fair standards of public services and taxation in all regions of the country are vital to our national unity. And thirdly, that co-ordination in tax policy between the central government and the provinces is essential in a modern industrial state. The wartime tax rental agreements, forged in response to the urgent demands of war finance, provided the framework for putting these concepts into practice.

The fiscal provisions of the present bill are the outcome of these initial discussions. They are also the climax of 25 years of change, since the end of the war, in the course of which both theory and application of these concepts have been adapted to Canada in the 70's.
The provisions are particularly based on the concepts of fiscal independence and fiscal responsibility for each of our eleven sovereign governments. In this regard, they aim at a balance between centralization and decentralization of public finances in Canada. They therefore fully respect constitutional rights of provinces in the area of direct income tax. However, they also provide an efficient framework within which the two levels of government can co-operate on matters of policy and fiscal administration.
What is just as important is that they provide a basic financial framework within which national standards for essential public services in all regions of the country can be ensured.

Our success in developing an effective system of intergovernmental tax and fiscal relationships have attracted the attention of students of public finance from many other federal countries. For example, I refer to a recent report issued by the United States advisory commission on intergovernmental relations. This commission, composed of members of the federal, state and local governments and private citizens, reporting directly to the United States, comment in their report as follows:
Canada's tax sharing approach has gone a long way in redressing the general revenue imbalance within the Canadian federation. One of the tests for ascertaining the relative fiscal and political strength of the partners in a federal system is to observe how they share the intergovernmental revenue pie over time. Using the "revenue pie" test, the performance of the provinces is truly impressive. Between 1957 and 1969, the provincial share of all revenue collections rose from 18 to 33 per cent; the federal
March 1, 1972

share fell from 69 to 52 per cent; and the local share increased slightly from 13 to 15 per cent.
By comparison, the performance of our States was far less impressive .. . most of the remarkable revenue gains chalked up by the provinces during the 1950's and 1960's can be attributed to the willingness of the federal policymakers to negotiate with the provincial political leadership and their decision to share their prime revenue source with the provinces.
Further in their report this United States commission also concludes that, to use their words:
Canada has achieved a very high degree of federal-provincial tax co-ordination.
The report goes on to note its approval, using their own words again:
That Canada has developed a sophisticated and effective method for equalizing the revenue capacity of the provinces.
This analysis by the U.S. Commission refers particularly to the basic system of fiscal relations set out in the current Fiscal Arrangements Act of 1967. Major parts of that legislation are due to expire on March 31 of this year, which lends a certain urgency to the bill now before the House.

During the past two years, my predecessor had some seven meetings with his provincial opposite numbers for the purpose of assessment and consideration of a total plan. It was recognized that the scope of the plan called for close study of its operation and possible improvements, and consultation on these points. It was also necessary to readjust somewhat the revised tax structure in the amended federal Income Tax Act. The Department of Finance has also undertaken a number of technical studies. A committee of federal and provincial officials has made a detailed review of these studies and reported to the ministers concerned. The technical analysis and the numerous discussions among the ministers have led to the plenary federal-p-rovincial meeting of last November, where all the matters dealt with in the bill have been reviewed.
This review has shown that a great deal of interests are opposed to and in conflict with one another. This cannot be avoided in a country the size of Canada with the diversity of its various regions. Some of these differences cannot be completely ironed out and the responsibility for the necessary decisions rests finally with the Parliament of Canada. However, the bill has, as much as practicable, taken into account all the exchanges of opinions, studies and discussions that have taken place between governments.

1 would now like to turn to a review of the main features of the bill. Part 1 extends the 1967 arrangements for equalizing total provincial revenues for a further five years. Although the basic equalization formula is not changed, provision is made for certain technical improvements which reflect experience and various developments in provincial financing over the last five years. Hon. members will recall that the 1967 arrangements provided for the equalization of provincial revenues on a comprehensive basis. The formula measures the revenue raising capacity of each province. To the extent that the per
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
capita revenues of any particular province are below the national average because of a lack of provincial revenue capacity, the federal government fills the gap by a direct grant.

Previous arrangements were formally started in 1957 to balance only part of the provincial revenues. In 1967, the then Minister of Finance, the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), made a great leap forward by extending this formula to include all sources of provincial revenues. The equalization payments of the federal government increased therefore dramatically from $371 million in 1966 to $546 million in 1967. In view of the continued growth of the economy, as well as of provincial revenues, the equalization payments now total almost one billion dollars.

Equalization is based upon a comprehensive statistical measurement of the revenue raising capacity of each province. Consequently, the amount paid to each recipient government varies widely. Under the formula set out in the bill, the poorest provinces would receive the largest per capita payments. Thus, both Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island would qualify for about $213 per person in the next fiscal year; New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan form a middle group with per capita payments of $164, $135 and $102 respectively; Quebec and Manitoba, both provinces only marginally below the national average in revenue potential, would qualify for the smallest payments of $74 and $58 per person respectively. These variations help, I think, to make clear the basic principles of need and fairness which underlie the system. At the committee stage on the bill, I shall be glad to table extensive tables and illustrative material documenting how these calculations are made.
Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia are all provinces with a measured revenue raising capacity above the national average and hence are not eligible for payments. Of course, if any one of these provinces met adverse circumstances which reduced their fiscal potential below the national average, they would qualify for payments immediately and automatically. Needless to say, none of these provinces, I am sure, would want to undergo that experience.
I want also to stress to Your Honour an important point. Unfortunately, it appears as if some Canadians believe that the governments of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, or the taxpayers in those provinces alone, supply all the tax revenue redistributed in the form of equalization. This is not so. Equalization is paid out of the general revenues of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the government of Canada. These are drawn equally from any given level of income earned by taxpayers wherever they may reside in Canada.
Let us view it from another perspective. It is also clear how important these equalization transfers are to the qualifying provinces. For Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Quebec, equalization amounted to from 13 per cent to 16 per cent of their gross revenues from their own provincial sources in 1971-72. For Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, the proportion was much larger-somewhat more than a

March 1, 1972
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
third. For the two island provinces, equalization represented 55 per cent and 66 per cent of revenues from provincial sources.
These proportions do not arise-and I want to make this clear-from any unwillingness on the part of these provinces to tax their own citizens. On the contrary, studies in my department show that the tax effort by almost all of these provinces is about, and in some cases well above, the national average. In contrast, the higher income provinces, particularly British Columbia and Alberta, enjoy below average levels of taxation. This is so because of the abundant resource revenues which obviously contribute to the favourable position of these two western provinces. For Newfoundland to raise from its own tax base the full amount of its federal equalization transfer would require it to boost its tax rates by an average of 75 per cent. That would mean for Newfoundland a retail sales levy of 14 per cent, a gas tax raised from 25 cents to 44 cents per gallon, and a personal income tax rate hike from 36 per cent of federal tax up to 63 per cent.
Thus it is understandable why the lower income provinces, properly anxious to provide their people with decent schools, adequate health care, better roads, and all the basic services of a modern civilized society, place such great importance upon the equalization system authorized by parliament. They regard it not only as vital to their own financing but also as vital to fiscal federalism in Canada. Equalization is critical to their existence as viable social and political entities, and as such it is fundamental to our country.
Fortunately, I do not believe there is any serious dissent from the objective of achieving reasonably comparable standards of public service all across Canada. However, there have been differences of view as to how far the principle of equalization should be carried. Some concern has been voiced that heavier financial transfers from the higher income regions of the country to the poorer provinces may slow down total national growth. Specific features of the formula have been criticized in some quarters, particularly the equalization of revenues from particular kinds of natural resources. There has also been discussion among the provinces and the federal government as to what revenues ought to be calculated in providing the base for equalization.
An alternative approach to the financial problems of the poorer provinces has also been suggested. This would replace the present grants to the lower income provinces by direct federal payments to poorer people in all parts of Canada. It seems to be argued that such payments to individuals would result in an increase of tax revenues to the lower income provinces, and thus there would be no need for equalization transfers. I suppose this may be an appealing notion but it does not stand up under any Serious analysis.
What would happen to provincial revenues if we abolished equalization payments and substituted $1 billion in payments to persons? In the ensuing fiscal year equalization payments will represent about $1 billion. The answer is that revenues to those provinces formerly receiving equalization would decline disastrously. The equalization transfers themselves would vanish from provincial 
receipts. Of the equivalent amount paid to individuals only about 55 per cent would be received in the seven lower income provinces. The remaining 45 per cent would go to persons in the three wealthier provinces.
Moreover, even if this limited amount of guaranteed income payments helped persons in the less wealthy provinces, the tax revenues received by their provincial governments would be reduced. Not only would there be a smaller flow of total income received and spent in these provinces but the tax revenues generated in the process would clearly be less than those generated by government spending on goods and services. Thus it will be clear that the seven provinces concerned would lose both the equalization grants and a portion of their own tax revenues. In such a situation these provinces would have to increase tax rates to impossible levels simply to maintain services to their people, or else they would have to abandon efforts to provide those services.
As an alternative scheme one might then ask what level of direct payments to persons would generate as much revenue in the lower income provinces as is provided by the existing equalization grants? The obvious answer is: enough to raise the average income of individuals to a level about equal to the present national average in Canada. The data available do not make a precise estimate possible. Nevertheless I have had it estimated for me that the net cost of a guaranteed income scheme of this nature across the country, necessary to compensate those provinces for equalization grants, would be in the nature of $13 billion to $14 billion.
This is a net cost after deduction of off-sets for equalization and existing federal and provincial transfers to lower income individuals which would no longer be necessary. However attractive the notion, it is safe to say that not even the most ardent advocate of the guaranteed income has aspired to new federal expenditures of these heights, having in mind the boost in tax levels necessary to finance them.
The federal government is fully committed to explore the use of the guaranteed income as a technique in the war against poverty. But, as we have emphasized, it is a mistake to suppose that any realistic form of such income support to individuals will solve all our problems, and particularly within the context of this bill, the problems of serious regional disparity, geographic disparity in incomes, and the differences in regional public finance.
In the ministry that I held before assuming this responsibility I became familiar with the constitutional aspects and structure of our country. I believe that for those of us who were involved in those federal-provincial discussions it was a unique learning experience.
Our revenue equalization system is one of the most fundamental aspects of federal-provincial relations. It goes right to the heart of the way that this country is bound together and held together. If the economically stronger parts of Canada are not prepared to help the weaker, generously and freely, can we really be said to have a country? I have no doubt that members of all parties and from all parts of Canada will give their answer in their support for this bill.
May I turn now in general terms to Part II of the bill which deals with the closely related question of the stabili-
March 1, 1972

zation of provincial revenues. I suppose one could consider that the equalization system itself provides a type of effective stability of provincial revenues in the less wealthy recipient provinces. But the express stabilization feature which is carried over from the former act of 1967 into this bill is designed to meet other potential needs. These include the maintenance of revenues not only for the so-called have-not provinces but for the other three provinces, indeed for all the provinces. In other words, stabilization applies to all the provinces of Canada in the event of a general decline in total provincial revenues.
What the bill does under the stabilization provision is provide for a floor under provincial revenues. This floor consists of a federal guarantee to make a grant to any province whose revenues fall below 100 per cent of those received in the immediately preceding year. The year to year comparison for the province would of course be based upon the same rates and structure of its taxes. [Translation]
This program, Mr. Speaker, is an improvement over the provisions of the 1967 act in which the revenue "floor" was set at 95 per cent of the preceding year. Fortunately, in the last five years, not a single province has been faced with circumstances such as would have entailed a federal stabilization payment. We hope that this situation will continue in the next few years. This bill guarantees however to each province and its people the maintenance of most public services, even though economic conditions might suddenly and unexpectedly deteriorate.
Another benefit of stabilization is the help it provides to provinces when they attempt to borrow on international money markets. Borrowers will be conscious of the new "floor" set at 100 per cent instead of 95 per cent, and the general financial position of the provinces should consequently improve.

I come now to deal with Part III of the bill in general terms. This extends the system of intergovernmental tax collection agreements which has developed over the past 30 years. You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that despite the taxes imposed both by this parliament and by the provinces, the great majority of Canadians need comply with only one income tax system. They file only one return and deal with only one group of tax collectors. This contrasts sharply with the situation which obtains in many other federal countries. Frequently the separate jurisdictions in other nations have different income tax laws. These are potentially confusing, irritating and burdensome to individual taxpayers and corporations.
Canada has developed both formal co-ordination and informal co-operation which minimize these difficulties. In all provinces except Quebec individual citizens are able to use only one return for federal and provincial taxes, based upon the same definition of taxable income, the same allowable deductions, and the same progression of rates.
Both provincial and federal taxes are collected through the federal machinery at no cost to the agreeing provinces. They and their taxpayers are thereby relieved of administration costs which have been estimated to run as high as $100 million annually.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
Similar joint arrangements apply to the corporation income tax in all provinces except Ontario and Quebec. Even here I expect that substantial and effective harmonization in both law and administration will be rapidly restored as the reformed federal tax law settles firmly into place.
Within this framework of tax harmonization and uniformity, provinces are perfectly free to establish their own rates of taxation. They have been doing so to an increasing extent. This is the real test of fiscal independence and decentralization-the willingness to exercise the responsibility to tax as well as the responsibility to spend.
We are also continuing to improve the degree of flexibility available within the arrangements. A new agreement with Ontario was recently announced by the provincial treasurer of that province which will tie credits against provincial income taxes into the system, replacing that province's existing program of separate property tax rebates. Under the new system, individuals may file proof of property taxes paid, and certain deductions from income tax will be allowed, or rebates of the property tax already paid will be issued. Persons who do not normally file income tax returns will be able to do so, in order to claim their rebates. Similar consultations are being held with Manitoba about credits for their provincial sales tax.
The present bill would also empower the federal government to collect, on behalf of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and the four Atlantic provinces the succession duties which they have proposed. I want to emphasize that these provinces have made the decision to rejoin Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia in the succession duty field entirely on their own. We have had no part in their decision and have agreed to assist in collections only in response to their urgent requests to us. I believe that the people of the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia should be aware of that. The aforementioned provinces have pointed out that they do not have collection machinery available for this purpose and that considerable benefits in terms of efficiency and cost-savings could be achieved by federal administration. Under the terms of the bill, however, this commitment would end in three years' time-it lapses after three years. The bill would also authorize the federal government to collect gift tax for certain provinces.
Parts IV and V of the bill deal with special questions arising out of the reform of the federal Income Tax Act, passed by this House before Christmas. Provinces were concerned that the higher exemptions, increased deductions and revised rate structure in the new federal act might cause them a loss of revenue if they adopted all these features as a part of the reform package. The bill therefore provides a five-year guarantee that each province will receive as much revenue from the reformed personal income tax as it would have under the old system. This guarantee would be available to provinces which harmonize their personal income tax acts with the federal statute, and which levy rates of tax at January 1 no higher than the effective burdens imposed in 1971. Because of this guarantee, nine provinces have remained within the tax collection system and Quebec has stated its

March 1, 1972
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
full intention to harmonize its own income tax legislation with the reformed federal act.
In response to provincial requests to share in the revenues from the tax on payouts of undistributed profits held at the end of 1971, the bill also proposes a transfer of one-fifth of these revenues to the provinces. This is roughly the same proportion as the federal government now shares with the provinces in the corporation tax field.

The other part of the bill deals with the method whereby the federal government helps the provinces to finance 50 per cent of the cost of post-secondary education in Canada. Here again, it is an extension of the program launched for the first time in 1967 and which is to be terminated on March 31 next. The support of the federal government in that area came in the form of tax point transfers as well as adjustment grants. Education is a complex area of public policy where a rapid ferment of change is assailing accepted ideas and institutions.
This is why the bill proposes that these provisions be extended only for a period of two years. During that period we look forward to intensive consultations with the provinces to determine more specifically the goals, the trend of the policies and the responsibilities of the federal government. This is a pressing problem which comes under the jurisdiction of my colleague the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier). I expect him to intervene during this debate to deal in depth with this important issue.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague tells me that his speech might last about ten minutes and if after my speech the leaders of the other parties would agree, instead of having the usual reply, the minister might be given the floor for ten minutes to complete the picture. It will be up to the House to decide.

The final part of the bill is concerned with two further questions upon which I should comment briefly. There is first a "housekeeping" section, including reference to the making of regulations. I was concerned with this question in my earlier responsibilities. The government is fully committed to the policy of limiting its own powers of regulation to the minimum. This is the burden of the Statutory Instruments Act passed by this Parliament and the burden of the review of the Scrutiny Committee to be set up in this session. It will be obvious, however, that the substance of this bill depends upon a great many technically complex definitions, measurements and calculations. Indeed, the revenue guarantee envisages the use of abstract mathematical equations. To have attempted to incorporate all of this into statutory language would have been impossible, or resulted in a completely incomprehensible bill. The provinces have also urged that technical details should be prescribed in regulations upon which they might be consulted, and it would be our intention to proceed in this way.

There is one more question which remains to be decided in the last part of the bill. It has to do with the application of the revised version of some provisions of the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act. This legisla-
[Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton).J
tion was passed in 1965 and included an option for a different kind of federal payments to the provinces regarding selected shared-cost social programs. Instead of a concrete federal contribution in the form of a cash grant, that legislation provided for transfer of fiscal "elbow room" to the provinces. This additional taxation field allowed provinces to levy part of the revenues needed to finance their own programs. This "non-participation formula", as it could be called, was applicable to hospitalization insurance, welfare programs and general health grants. Although all provinces had access to that offer from the federal government, only Quebec chose to take advantage of it. A similar agreement was later introduced in order to support post-secondary education in all provinces.
It is important to realize that for the seven years during which those agreements were in force, Quebec has received no less and no more federal assistance than would have been given under the traditional cost-sharing method. The provisions of this bill simply extend the validity of those arrangements for a further period of five years. They have been adjusted, however, to reflect the slight changes in the value of transferred fiscal points due to income tax reform.

This general question of "opting out" was discussed at some length at the federal-provincial plenary conference of last November. At that time, the federal government suggested that it was not at all clear how full financial responsibility for the shared-cost social programs, together with the necessary financial resources, could be transferred to all the provinces on a fair and lasting basis. The health and welfare programs, which were thought to be well established, have in fact been undergoing rapid change. Their form, coverage and substance have all been rapidly evolving as new ideas, new techniques, and new institutions have come to the fore. Parallel with these developments, cost control and prediction have become more difficult. Consequently any simple mechanistic transfer of financial responsibility and tax room is not likely to provide lasting and useful solutions. Instead we have been exploring alternative means by which the provinces might enjoy greater flexibility and freedom to design their own programs and fix their own priorities, but still receive fair and appropriate financial support from the Parliament of Canada.
These explorations and consultations with the provinces will continue. But they are more likely to succeed if carried out on a program by program basis. This will ensure that careful attention is paid to the special circumstances and developing prospects in each case, and that the central objectives of these basic social programs are not lost sight of in a squabble over the form of financing.
In all of these consultations, however, we must keep constantly in mind the responsibilities of the government and Parliament of Canada toward all Canadians. I have attempted in these remarks, Mr. Speaker, to convey something of the historical foundations, the broad philosophy and the main highlights of the bill. I should like to reiterate, in closing, its urgent importance to the provinces, and thus to our country and its citizens. It is a lengthy and technically difficult bill, and perhaps not one to attract widespread public attention. But as I have emphasized, it
March 1, 1972

renews and improves a set of interrelated fiscal arrangements which are fundamental to federalism and national unity in Canada. On that basis I feel sure that it will be received with keen interest and debated with understanding in this House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It was my understanding that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) intended to ask for leave to table certain documents. Did I understand correctly?


John Napier Turner: I said, Sir, that when we reach the committee stage, if we do, I would be glad, in response to any request made in the committee hearing, to table documents in committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I beg the minister's pardon. I misunderstood him.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to thank the House for giving unanimous consent to my introducing Part VI of the bill. I think that all hon. members will benefit from having the bill explained to them now. Any hon. member who is not a lawyer, at least, is bound to find the legal language used in the bill very difficult to understand compared with the relative simplicity of explanations given in non-legal terms.
Therefore, I am happy to join my colleague in introducing Part VI of this bill under which, as you know, the post-secondary education adjustment payment program adopted in 1967 will be continued for the next two fiscal years, that is up to March 31, 1974.
The federal-provincial conference of October 1966- hon. members will no doubt remember

was preceded by three days of talks on the financing of higher education, to which the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) and all his provincial counterparts at the time participated.
The Canadian government then indicated some changes to be made to its policy concerning financial aid to education, particularly secondary education. The first object of these policy changes was to replace the system of grants to universities being distributed through the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada-and in the case of Quebec, by means of some tax-sharing arrangements between the federal government and the provinces-by assistance enabling the provinces to cope with the increasing cost of post-secondary education, for operation expenses as well as for capital expenses, under a special arrangement concerning fiscal transfers.
The second object was to eliminate any distinction between university training and post-secondary technical or professional training, in fact, to eliminate anything which, on account of the federal contributions, could indirectly exert some influence on the particular trend of development of institutions in any province.
The third object was to substitute an adult professional training program to the assistance granted under the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act of 1961, which was about to expire.

Hon. members will realize, I believe, that these programs have expanded very significantly during the past
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
five years. The assistance offered through Part II of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, 1967, has doubled. Under the post-secondary education support program, fiscal transfers made by the federal government to the provinces rose from $422 million in 1967-68 to $870 million in 1971-72. I would like, with the permission of hon. members, to table some statistical material regarding payments made from 1967-68 to 1971-72 under Part II of the 1967 act. While the remarkable expansion of postsecondary education in Canada during the late 1960's was made possible by energetic leadership on the part of those concerned, both in the provinces and in the institutions themselves, the action of the federal government in assuring financial support provided the needed stimulus.
We are all aware that public expectations with regard to education grew steadily during the 1960's. The expansion in enrolment and educational services during this period resulted in a rapid escalation of costs, with total expenditures on post-secondary education by all levels of government rising from about $340 million in 1960-61 to over $2.5 billion in 1971-72, and the federal share rising from 25 per cent to 49 per cent during the same period. The rate of increase in total expenditures on post-secondary education has been considerably higher than the growth in GNP and this cost escalation has been of great concern to all governments, both in relation to government revenues and in the allocation of funds between priorities.
Realizing the complex problems which arise when growth is so rapid and when programs, such as the postsecondary education fiscal transfer, manpower training, research support to universities, and student assistance, are so diverse, the federal government is undertaking a review of its future long-term involvement in post-secondary education. I wish to assure the House that this review will be made in full consultation with provincial authorities, of course.
Following a letter dated November 9, 1970, which the Prime Minister sent to the first ministers concerning the federal-provincial post-secondary education fiscal transfer program, I began, early in 1971, consultations with the Council of Ministers of Education of Canada and with each of the individual ministers to obtain their general comments on the operation of our program for the two years 1972-73 and 1973-74. In the light of all the circumstances, it was felt that a ceiling should be agreed upon to limit the annual rate of growth of the federal contribution. These points were discussed with each minister of education and, on two occasions, I met with the Council of Ministers of Education of Canada.
The federal government has found these consultations very helpful and we shall try to ensure that co-operation with the provinces will continue in the future.

Part VI of the bill now before the House will permit continued progress of post-secondary education in the provinces until 1974; we will then be in a position to make a detailed and motivated statement on the attitude contemplated at that time.
Part VI of the bill therefore extends for two years, until March 31, 1974, the post-secondary education fiscal transfer program. It sets at a yearly maximum of 15 per cent the national rate of increase in the federal contribution

March 1, 1972
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and I mean the "national rate". It will still be possible to grant individual provinces increases in excess of 15 per cent as long as the overall federal contribution to the provinces as a whole does not exceed the 15 per cent ceiling. However, if during one of those two years, the authorized expenses of post-secondary education institutions were to boost the overall national federal contribution over 15 per cent, the provinces with an increase rate above 15 per cent would have their payments reduced in proportion to the excess amount which the payments made to them would have contributed to create.
Clause 24 of the bill is a statement of conditions applicable to the 15 per cent ceiling. Clause 26 deals with the implementation, by the Finance Minister, of the federal revenue reduction relating to post-secondary education. As for the remainder of Part VI of the bill, it is identical to Part II of the 1967 act.
Under the circumstances, I think that the proposed amendments offer a reasonable procedure enabling us to take into account a transitional period during the next two years which seems to me to be fair for all parties concerned, while being reassuring as regards the ceiling on total federal expenditures. Therefore, I hope that hon. members will give favourable attention to that bill.
With leave of the House, I would like to table the figures outlining the application of the 1967 agreements during the years for which comprehensive results are available to the government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Does the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) have consent to table the documents to which he has referred?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Barnett:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the documents are not too lengthy, I wonder whether there might be agreement to have them attached to today's Hansard as an appendix so that we may be able to review them along with the minister's speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I might say the documents are not lengthy. Is it the wish of the minister and hon. members that the documents tabled be appended to today's Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of documents referred to above, see Appendix B.]


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I must begin by agreeing with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) about the importance of the subject matter of the legislation. There can be no doubt about the importance of this legislation to the provinces and the country.
The minister reviewed the history of this legislation to some extent. He went back to the prewar days when everybody was on their own, so to speak, through the wartime period when it was strictly a tax sharing proposition. Subsequently, this was discontinued and at some point not long after the war, the principle of equalization
(Mr. Pelletier.]
was introduced. My recollection is that initially the principle of equalization was based on the per capita yield from the three taxes, corporate income tax, personal income tax and succession duties, the per capita yield in these three areas in the two or three highest yield provinces. As the minister reminded us, the principle was changed in 1967 so that the concept of equalization since then takes into consideration virtually all revenues and brings each province up to the national average yield of provincial revenues from all sources. That, of course, is in per capita terms.
I am not going to indulge in a comparison with the United States. I understand that anyone in the United States would regard this as a vast improvement over any system there because there are virtually no fiscal relationships between the administration in Washington and the states. My impression is that the state governments have very little idea about what the federal administration is doing. Sometimes both levels of government operate in the same area of jurisdiction without the slightest idea what the other is doing. As Leader of the Opposition, I have to agree that in a comparison of relationships, that is fiscal and other relationships, between Washington and the states, our relationship here is happy by comparison. I think the minister will agree that by and large this is a stand-pat arrangement, except that arrangements with regard to post-secondary education are to terminate, as far as these arrangements are concerned, after a two year period.
I only want to say two things at this time about the post-secondary aspects of this bill. First, the uncertainty should be removed quickly because it is not possible to do much planning on the basis of a two year assurance. I am sure the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) will agree it is imperative that whatever new arrangement is made to replace this will be satisfactory. Any government that I am in charge of following the next election will ensure that it is satisfactory.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is imperative that it be worked out quickly in order to reduce the degree of uncertainty as rapidly as possible.
Second, it is imperative that there be real consultation. The Secretary of State told us something about his consultation. There was supposed to have been consultation the last time. Actually, what was worked out was improvised at the last minute. There was no real consultation prior to the current arrangements having been adopted in the first place. I stress the importance of real and meaningful consultation between those responsible in Ottawa and those responsible in the provinces for whatever scheme replaces the present arrangements with regard to financing post-secondary education in Canada, a very important topic.
As I said previously, this is basically a stand-pat arrangement. It continues the same equalization formula with the exception that the guarantee is moved up to 100 per cent from 95 per cent. We should bear in mind there are two aspects of the financial sharing arrangements of this bill. There is the regional aspect of straight sharing in the area of taxation in which both the federal and provincial governments have an equal right to tax. This began
March 1, 1972

during the war and has continued. It was designed to reduce the tax jungle in this area as much as possible. There is the straight tax sharing arrangement. Most provinces which do not receive any equalization payments receive certain points of the personal and corporation income taxes. That is one aspect of this bill. It is a stand-pat arrangement in that regard.
Provinces which do not receive any equalization payments will receive the same proportion of revenues from personal and corporate income taxes as they receive under the agreement that has been in effect since 1967, except there will be a guarantee that they will not receive less in any one year than they received during the previous year. I want to emphasize that this is a stand-pat arrangement in this regard as well as with regard to the concept of equalization. The minister stressed the national importance of the equalization aspect of the measure. He may not have used the words "national unity", but he stressed the importance to the concept of Canada and the importance of providing something like an acceptable standard of provincial services across the country. It does not really do that. As I am sure the premier of any Atlantic province would argue, it does not really achieve that entirely. He would argue, I am sure, that municipal revenues should be included in the equalization concept.
If the minister has not heard that argument I am sure he will hear it frequently in the future.
The equalization formula has been improved over the years. It is not yet to be regarded as perfect. I emphasize that this bill does not bring about any further change in the equalization formula except that the guarantee is moved up from 95 per cent to 100 per cent. The bill does two things in this regard. It shares tax revenues which arise from a field of common jurisdiction, personal income tax and corporate income tax, as well as the equalization aspect. The reason I emphasize this is that prior to the arrangements which were incorporated in legislation back in 1967, a limited study was conducted by a team of federal and provincial officials. The purpose of that study was to forecast provincial expenditures across Canada over the ensuing five year period based on programs then in existence and to forecast provincial revenues over the ensuing five year period based on taxes then in existence. The same was done with respect to forecasting federal expenditures and revenues. Of course, this study had to be conducted on the basis of certain assumptions, but the team of officials agreed on results which show that, on the basis of programs then in effect, provincial governments would run into positions of increasing deficit and that the federal government would move into a position of increasing surplus. To my knowledge, these findings have never been disputed. I believe there was also a ten-year forecast which indicated the same thing.
I can recall very well the vividness of the disappointment of those responsible for provincial financial matters when, having authorized the study and having carried it through jointly with a team of federal officials, they found that the federal government was paying absolutely no attention to these findings and had proceeded to put into operation the tax sharing arrangements which are now in
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
effect, ignoring completely the consequences of that study. This is one of the things that are annoying to so-called "have" provinces-the fact that their share of the proportion of the field they are constitutionally entitled to occupy, personal income tax and corporate income tax is frozen, although the joint study to which I have referred has indicated that the revenues needed to discharge their responsibilities are growing at a rate much more rapid than the increase in federal costs.
I am dwelling on this point because I believe it is one of the factors which is weakening the desire of the people who live in those provinces to support the principle of equalization as fully as they did a few years ago. This is why I emphasize that we are dealing with a stand-pat arrangement with regard to the tax sharing aspects of this formula as well as the equalization aspects of it. Since 1967, it is fair to say, most provinces have been obliged to raise their taxes, not for the purpose of fighting inflation but in order to find money to meet their expenditures and to provide services directly, or to ease the municipal or urban tax load to some extent. As a consequence, as the minister himself mentioned, most provinces are now levying income tax in addition to the general prevailing rate across the country, revenues from which are shared. The Province of Nova Scotia is moving toward this position at the present time. At least, that is the intention of the government if it can get a bill through the legislature down there, as one supposes it will.
The increase in provincial expenditures arising from the nature of provincial responsibilities during the last five years has obliged the provinces generally to increase their taxes. At the very time the so-called tax reform bill is coming into operation, the provinces are already levying rates of taxation at levels substantially above the rates specified in the federal tax legislation. I am bold enough to forecast-I shall probably be called a prophet of gloom for doing so but I venture to believe I am being a realist- that the situation will continue to deteriorate during the five years of the arrangement we are considering, if it stays in effect for five years. On the basis of the prediction made some five years ago by federal and provincial officials that the cost of provincial programs and services would continue to grow, even the most prosperous provinces will be struggling to find new means of revenue to finance those programs and services, and the rate of taxation in the so-called tax reform bill passed just before the end of the year will bear less and less relationship with reality as those five years go by.
I think we should understand that the kind of taxation we are discussing, particularly personal income tax, is the most elastic form of revenue that exists in the country. It is the form of revenue which grows most rapidly as compared with other revenue sources available to provinces. This is another reason for expecting increasing resort by provincial governments to imposing, within their provinces, income taxes at rates above the schedule in the tax reform bill. Provinces are already resorting in increasing numbers to succession duties in a manner which bears no relation at all to the capital gains tax incorporated in the tax reform bill. No attempt has been made to integrate the two. The result is that succession duties will be piled on top of the capital gains tax, although I believe all us realize there ought to be some form of integration.

March 1, 1972
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
The Minister of Finance emphasizes that it is the provinces that are making this decision-he is suggesting that the federal government is not responsible for it in any way but I would throw that claim back at the minister. Indeed, I feel I have to because the minister and his predecessor, and the government to which they belong, abdicated their responsibility. Instead of simply vacating the field at very little financial cost to themselves, they should have negotiated with the provinces an arrangement to integrate succession duties in a sensible way with capital gains tax payments, perhaps by some system of cross credits.
I would regard this as an important priority for any federal government in this country to pursue. We already have a situation where we will have this kind of jungle in relationship to succession duties and capital gains tax. We already have an increasing number of provinces imposing a higher income tax rate than that contemplated by what I might refer to, if I am in order in doing so, for purposes of shorthand, as the "Benson bill". What the members of this House have to ask themselves is: What are the provinces going to do if these projections are correct and their expenditures are going to increase, as predicted by this joint team of officials? Can the provinces cut back on their programs, must they resort to additional taxation, or both? I suggest that they will have to do both, and the municipal and urban taxpayers will suffer in the process.
On the basis of the evidence that we now have, we have to conclude that the provinces will need to resort to additional taxes to meet their own needs, plus the needs of the municipalities. The provinces have been saying this themselves, of course, but it is backed up by the study made by the joint team of provincial and federal officials.
I suggest it is all very well for the Minister of Finance to talk so earnestly about a policy of jobs for all, a policy of development for this country. Nevertheless we are already heading into a tax structure that is not conducive to growth. If by any stretch of the imagination one can argue that the bill that was passed was a sensible piece of tax reform, conducive to growth, which I would not admit, then even if the bill were sensible, it would not meet the realities today in this country. Because on top of the bill there will be succession duties and income taxes that the provinces are now imposing at increasing rates, indeed which they will have to impose in order to enable them to keep afloat and to provide the very basic services to their own people. I contend that the bill that was passed before Christmas will become increasingly meaningless as time goes on. These two bills together, the so-called tax reform bill and the bill we are now debating, do not constitute a package that indicates equity in this country in terms of taxpaying, or a package that will lead to equity in terms of taxpaying, or which will encourage economic growth in the fight against poverty and unemployment.
This government cannot consider tax reform in isolation from provincial taxes, which are very much a part of the tax picture across the country. For tax reform to be meaningful it really must be approached on a truly national basis, not simply on the basis of the taxes that the federal government admits to being its own. I still believe that the tax reform bill in itself is a mess; but that bill,

plus the implications of this one, I contend will produce a mess of really massive proportions in this country during the next five years. The pressures of provincial and municipal expenditures are going to add to the eventual distortion.
What is there here to ensure that the fund of taxes contributed by the people of this country is going to be devoted to the priority items, or to ensure that the tax structure really is equitable and is designed to promote growth? The federal government is prepared to carry on where it began some five years ago, but it has not been prepared to take into consideration the findings of the study that was made at that time. At least prior to the 1967 arrangements a study was made and a projection put forward, though no particular attention was given to it when completed. But this time, so far as I know, no study at all has been made. The government of which the Minister of Finance is a member simply said: "This is it, gentlemen; we will discuss details with you, but this is it". And that was that.
It is all very well for the Minister of Finance, his predecessor or for any of their associates to say that if the provincial governments need more money, then let them raise it. The minister talks of fiscal responsibility, but in terms of personal and corporate income tax this is a field of taxation that is just as much provincial under the constitution as federal. When the federal government ignores the findings of its own officials as to the growing need for the provinces to discharge their own responsibilities, then it is harmful to the establishment of a sensible tax structure, to the growth of the country and to the meeting of the most urgent needs. If that is right it places strains upon national unity by increasing the reluctance of the relatively well-to-do to aid in the provision of services in the less well to do parts of the country.
I realize that we have the fine words, but I should like somebody on behalf of the government to indicate to us in some convincing way that under the arrangements that the minister has put forward there will not in fact be an increase in the piling of provincial income tax upon the schedules in the income tax laws that have been adopted. Is there not, in fact, as a result of this and as a result of the pressure to try to cover services even in the more prosperous provinces, going to be an additional strain upon national unity to maintain this kind of equalization program in the country? I feel very earnestly about this and it is my hope that this bill is referred to the committee quickly. I realize that the old arrangements run out at the end of the month, but I hope nevertheless that the committee will take the time and the trouble to hear representations from the provinces on the point I have raised as well as other points, in order to make certain that the bill we are adopting is really the bill that is best designed to serve the people of Canada, and in order to make certain that at least all the time and effort that was devoted to tax reform during the last year or two in this House will not go down the drain as a result of the inadequacies, not only of the tax reform bill but of the measure that the minister has presented to the House at this time.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is anyone in this House who does not approve
March 1, 1972

the principle of the equalization formula. I think there are very few of us who would not say that this country has survived because, in fact, we have worked out such a formula. If survival is the test, then to some extent we have been successful. However, if satisfaction is the test, we have been far from successful because what we have had in fact is survival without satisfaction. There is a great deal of dissatisfaction across this country with the relationship between the provincial and the federal governments and the relationships between various provinces. I would like to suggest to you that the government has not put enough effort into the idea of cost-sharing or the sharing of revenues between one part of Canada and another, nor have they used their imagination in a way that might have resolved some of the difficulties we now face.
There are serious strains on confederation. I think it is important at this time to take a look at some of these strains and to treat some of them seriously. I know the government is prone to dismiss with certain glib phrases the attitudes of certain premiers with whom they disagree. I want to take all the criticisms in as serious a vein as I can, to see to what extent those criticisms are valid and to what extent we can do something about them.
Recently, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) alluded to the proposal of the Premier of British Columbia. I tend to agree with the Minister of Finance that on the surface the proposal looks very alluring, but in fact it would be disastrous to the poor people of Canada and certainly to the poorer parts of this nation. I am prepared to say that the premier has the best intentions in the world. It would be different if he said that, on top of the money we are now devoting to equalization, we should devote additional moneys to a kind of guaranteed annual income. This would make some sense. But to say "we will do this instead of" does a terrible disservice to the people he proposes to help.
Perhaps this is an argument that did not occur to the Minister of Finance because he is a Liberal and does not think along these lines. What has to be recalled is that the equalization payments which go to the provinces enable the provinces to provide public services, the chief beneficiaries of which are the poor of those provinces. The important distinction is that, even if the transfers to individuals were similar to the transfers to the provinces,-which the Minister of Finance pointed out they would not be-the transfers on a personal basis are largely for consumer goods while the transfers to provinces are largely for public goods such as hospitals, schools and transportation. Not only that, but many of these programs, assuming that they could be bought privately, would not be as efficient as those provided publicly and universally.
We went through this argument with medical services and hospitalization. I think our experience in Canada has proven conclusively that if we offer universal programs of public merit they can be provided at a lower cost and they are more readily accessible to everyone. On the whole, it has been those public programs that have most helped the poor of this country. I must say that in many ways we have not really narrowed the gap between the rich and the poor in the area of actual income distribution, so the only real successes we have had in narrowing the gap has been
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
in the level of public services we have provided that are equally accessible to the rich and to the poor. Surely, the premier of a province would not dismiss this kind of advantage too easily. Granted that he wants to improve the system, I think this is something he has to consider very carefully.
I said that I wanted to treat very seriously the proposals that come from the province of British Columbia. Perhaps there is an added reason today to treat these proposals seriously, since we are all wearing lovely flowers that the B.C. members have so kindly provided for those of us who are here today. We are, therefore, all friendly and well disposed toward the great province of B.C. British Columbia, which is a resource rich province, makes the argument that it is taxing its resource industries to the hilt. Of course, my colleagues in the legislature would not agree with that. They do not think B.C. is really taxing those resource industries as adequately as they should be taxed.
Nevertheless, British Columbia argues that it is taxing the resource industries at a level which is not being matched in some of the provinces that are receiving assistance under this equalization formula. The Government of British Columbia says, we do not mind paying equalization, we do not mind transfer payments from a province like ours if in fact it is richer than the recipient, but we expect you will also tax your resource industries at the same level. They would like to see those provinces which are receiving equalization grants taxing the resource industries at the same level as those provinces which are providing funds for equalization. I think that is a valid argument.
I think the argument is overstated because, in fact, some of the provinces at which the premier of B.C. pointed his finger do not possess, in my view, resources as rich or as accessible as those in his own province. But even accepting the overstatement, which does not come as a surprise from that source, there is an element of truth in the argument. I think the federal government has contributed to this feeling of alienation and has fostered the feeling against equalization because it has not acted. I want to point out the number of areas in which it has not acted.
Recently, we have had a debate on the new corporate income tax legislation, and we argued over and over again that all industry should be taxed equally, that favouritism not be shown in the tax system to the resource oriented industries. That argument fell on deaf ears on the government side, with the result an entire area is opened up for provinces to play games with resource industries. This is something we could have avoided had we passed an intelligent, sensible bill that dealt with this problem. These criticisms keep cropping up, criticisms we might have avoided. This is why I suggested in my opening remarks that we could have made some considerable improvement in the attitude towards sharing and towards fiscal transfers between provinces.
The whole question of regional grants is having a distorting influence on the entire picture. Today, some of my colleagues raised some very disturbing questions about these grants, how they were being given out and to whom they were being given out. When the idea of regional

March 1, 1972
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements grants first was proposed, those of us who lived in the most populous and better-off provinces were very pleased to support the idea of regional payments to stimulate industrial development in parts of Canada that did not have a great deal of industrial development. However, Mr. Speaker, all of us have become disillusioned with the way that those payments are being made. All of us are starting to question whether the vast sums of money that have gone into that program have, in fact corrected anything at all, have in fact done little more than fatten the coffers of corporations that did not really need money, and have in fact not settled the glaring regional disparities in this country.
Yet the federal government, under constant prodding and questioning from this side of the House, has done little except defend itself and this program with great indignation. In effect, they have said, "How dare you question our veracity, our wisdom," even though the program is collapsing around their ears and these vast sums of money are going down the drain. Perhaps we should consider taking much of the money that is going into DREE now and incorporating it into the transfer payments system. Perhaps the provinces could make better use of this money if it were transferred to them so they could undertake industrial development. There are provinces that are quite prepared to set up Crown corporations to do the kind of development work that private industry is either incapable of doing or unwilling to do. Yet those provinces cannot get any funds from DREE. However, DREE will give money to a large American international corporation. I repeat it will not give funds to a province in order to support a development corporation. This is an area where the federal government is creating a fantastic amount of dissatisfaction, both in those provinces that are receiving the grants and in those provinces that, to a large measure, are paying for them.
There has been a failure on the part of the federal government to head off some of the provinces who, understandably because of their rather desperate circumstances, in trying to correct unemployment problems, indulge in give-away programs. We have the picture of one province luring an industry to it by virtually giving that industry the moon. We have a situation in the pulp and paper industry where, as a result of provincial policies, due to the desperate position in which provinces found themselves, provinces went on a most unwise program of encouraging anyone who showed any inclination to establish a pulp and paper mill and so provide employment for their populations. The results have been disastrous. We have built too many mills. Giving money to one mill has forced the shutting down of another mill.
In the province of Manitoba, they are still trying to untangle the snarl that was created by a previous government with respect to a pulp and paper complex. They are trying to figure out how in the world the province got into that kind of messy situation. At the time it was launched, the program met with considerable popular acceptance. When a province is looking for jobs and says it needs to offer some seed money to attract industry, it is understandable that people will accept that fact.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) that unless the federal government establishes some clear method of ensuring that all prov-

inces will tax resource industries according to the way they should tax them, and not play the game of robbing Peter to pay Paul, or of stealing industry from other provinces, we will not get harmony, and we will not get satisfaction from any kind of equalization program.
I would like now to spend a moment or two discussing a problem that is arising in the province of Nova Scotia. This concerns offshore mineral rights. I am pleased to note that the province has discovered some minerals. After starting its existence as a very prosperous part of Canada, and later seeing its standard of living decline as industry shifted and changing patterns brought other provinces into prominence, it now sees the prospect of getting large revenues from offshore oil. A conflict is developing between the province and the federal government. Naturally, the province of Nova Scotia would dearly love to get out of the position where it is receiving equalization payments and into a position where it was contributing to other provinces. The federal government has now taken the stand that it will share with the province in revenues from affshore oil. Perhaps that is the only position that can be taken at this time. But the point arising from that particular situation is that we must clearly establish that all revenues will be shared, that the base for equalization will be broadened.
In this context, the federal government has to consider seriously the proposals advanced by the province of Manitoba, and supported by the province of Saskatchewan, that municipal assessments be included in the taxation base for sharing. If you include resource revenues I believe you also must include the revenues from manufacturing. If you do not do that, there will always be a feeling by some provinces of being mistreated or short-changed in the equalization program. The only way you can include all the revenues from manufacturing is to include the municipal revenues as well. But this does not mean that the entire municipal revenues have to be included, because obviously some of those revenues have to cover the costs of essential services for manufacturing, the costs of housing, and things of that kind. But over and above that, there are revenues that go to pay for educational services and that help underwrite the infrastructure of the social services of a province.
A difficulty arises when those revenues are not included in the base. This difficulty has been pointed out by the province of Manitoba. I understand that the province of Manitoba would like to shift the costs of education from the regressive base of property ownership to the more progressive base of corporate and personal income tax. But if it does that, under the present scheme it would lose out in terms of equalization. Its income tax, or its base for calculating payments from the equalization fund would increase, and therefore the payments to it would decline, and all this because the province wanted to move in a progressive direction. Unless some of this municipal revenue is included in the tax base in such a way that it does not disadvantage those provinces that wish to be progressive, there is bound to be dissatisfaction with the system. It means that every province in Canada, in terms of how progressive its tax system can be, is limited to the policy in the province of Ontario. They can move no faster in terms of this progressiveness than the province of Ontario moves.
March 1, 1972


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Backwards.


Max Saltsman: Sometimes it is backwards. The province of Ontario now transfers some of the educational costs to the provincial level. However, it is a long way from removing the burden of education from the municipal level to the provincial level. There are other provinces which would like to move faster than that. There are other provinces which, for good reasons, would like to change the way school costs are borne and they cannot do that under the present agreement.
There is another grievance from the province of Manitoba which ties in with that. Recently the province of Ontario was given the opportunity of reducing or instituting an across-the-board tax cut which is acceptable under the present formula. When Manitoba wanted to reduce its taxes, and reduce them in a selective way so that it would not be across-the-board but directed mostly to those people who needed assistance, their request was turned down. So, you have a system that is encouraging regressive taxation and discouraging anyone who wants to improve the tax system. The federal government has failed to give us a progressive tax system and is saying to the provinces that they are going to throw every roadblock they can in the way of it being done. That has to be changed. It is a legitimate complaint and the federal government should be able to present legislation that would take it into account.
Although I have understood it, I have regretted the fact that the Province of Quebec has opted to take points rather than have its taxes collected as the other provinces have. We can argue that Quebec is a special case. Every province is a special case, but perhaps Quebec is a little more special than the others. I think they have special problems and sensitivities which have to be allayed. In confederation, we have to bend a little bit in order to accommodate the sensitivities of any group. But I deplore, Mr. Speaker, the tendency of other provinces to want to go the same way. It is one thing for Quebec, which at the moment is a "have not" province and receives assistance from the others, to take this position because of its cultural needs, but it is a different thing when the province of Ontario, the rich province of Canada and perhaps the other rich provinces, decide to go the same way.
Ultimately, this will destroy the whole principle of equalization. It is not good enough for the federal government to say any government can take its tax points and get out. That is no good to a province without a great number of tax points. Perhaps the minister is going to remind me later in the debate that there is a guarantee that, to the extent their revenues fall short of the tax points, the federal government will make it up. I would respectfully suggest, considering the record of this government, that this is no guarantee at all, especially when we remember medicare and post-secondary education. The only effective guarantee for the provinces is a continuation of the equalization formula and prevention of any province opting out. Otherwise, no one is going to have any confidence in the future.
The federal government has also indicated that it intends to get out of the cost-sharing programs, that is
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements medicare, hospital insurance and post-secondary education because costs have escalated beyond their calculations. They imply that the provinces have been irresponsible under these cost-sharing programs and so the federal government will limit its participation in the years that remain to an increase at the most of 15 per cent. Mr. Speaker, I think it is immoral, it is unfeeling and it is dishonest, for a government to make this argument.
We in this party supported with the greatest enthusiasm a national program of hospitalization and a national program of medical insurance. We felt that there had to be standards in those areas across the country, and that whatever the cultural or linguistic differences across this country or differences in life style, these elements were so fundamental they had to be available to every Canadian. The government made the right moves in this direction, although reluctantly and some 30 years after Mackenzie King had promised them, but we never thought that it would renege on its promise. It is all right for some of the richer provinces that have set up their infrastructure. In the early years of these programs they had the resources which enabled them to build the facilities necessary for a shared cost program and thus prepare themselves for the future under a medical and hospital service plan. But it is not fair to the poorer parts of Canada and the provinces that are only now starting to develop these programs to the fullest extent.
The federal government has been unfair in another way. It has not provided flexibility and a lot of the fault for over-spending rests on its shoulders. Because of the rigid formula introduced for both these programs it is virtually impossible for a province to find ways to cut costs or to experiment with finding better ways to handle the services. Now, the government accuses the provinces of wild spending, seeming to forget that each province has to put up half the money. This is almost harder for some provinces to acquire than is the portion that comes from the federal government. I think it is imperative that the federal government give an assurance to the provinces that it will continue these programs which are national in scope, on a shared-cost basis.
If there is to be a change, and if the federal government feels that it does not have as much control as it would like, then it can move in a number of directions. One would be to provide more flexibility, so that provinces could use their discretion and another would be for the government to take over the entire cost of the program. Of course, I have some reservations, and I think we all have about shared-cost programs. We know there are difficulties with them, but we do not think these are the difficulties that are being enumerated by the federal government, nor do we think the reasons are those that the federal government is stating. Some of the finest programs in this country are totally operated by the federal government. It may be that it will have to move out of shared-cost programs into programs entirely operated by the provinces or entirely operated by the federal government. If there is to be a move in that direction I suggest, in fairness to all the provinces and particularly the poorer provinces, that the federal government should assume the total cost of medical and hospital programs as it does the old age pension and unemployment insurance.

March 1, 1972
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
If these are national priorities, and I think they are, then it should be the responsibility of the federal government to assume them.


Mr. Francis:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? I have been following his argument with some interest and, as I understand it, he is arguing that the federal government should assume the entire cost of certain programs which have been traditionally within the jurisdiction of the provinces according to our constitutional arrangements. Does he envisage the provinces continuing to administer these programs or does he envisage a situation where the federal government would be responsible for raising money and provincial governments for spending? Would he explain to us what he has in mind at this point?


Max Saltsman: I certainly think there are some difficulties connected with the position, and I do not underestimate them. I suggest to the hon. member, if I may reply to his question, that if we want to move in this direction then, if experience from the past is any guide, we would find ways of making the constitution fit our needs. We need to establish many programs, and the hon. member knows this as well as I do. No one would quarrel with us if the federal government set them up, even though they did not fall under federal jurisdiction.
Let me point out that, originally, unemployment insurance was not under federal jurisdiction, either, yet we got around that difficulty by agreement. Manpower policies are financed by the federal government and administered by the provinces. There you see a joint operation. If we want to do certain things which appear unconstitutional, I say that the constitution will present no problem. When hon. members do not want something to be done, they bring forward the constitution and conveniently hide behind it. I do not know why they do not stop doing this. When the government finally decides to do something in an area previously considered to be outside its jurisdiction under the constitution, it suddenly discovers how remarkably flexible is our constitution. I say, therefore, that the constitutional argument is not really valid. I am not trying to ignore such arguments, because I admit that there are problems in this area. I merely suggest that when we really decide to do something, the constitution is not allowed to stand in our way. In those circumstances you hear no one saying that the proposed program does not conform with the constitution because there is a comma in one place or a word in the other and that we should not introduce it. Canadians are far too sensible to go along with legal rigidities like that, because they know that there are ways of doing those things which are important for them.
I have dealt with some of the criticisms that have been levied against the present arrangement. I do not suggest that our present equalization formula is not reasonably good. I think, on the whole, we have done fairly well. I noted the minister was quoting from the report of an American committee and boasting how well Canadians are doing in this field. If we compare ourselves with other countries, we shall see that we have done reasonably well. All I am suggesting is that there is no reason why we

should not be moving in the particular direction I am pointing to. The minister should not hide behind the sort of pat on the head he has been given by a commission in the United States or use what has been said by them as an excuse for not taking action. After all, some of the amendments which have been incorporated in this bill are really minor in nature. They are a sort of minimum accommodation. One wonders where the great vision of the just society and all those other ideas that permeated the other side of the House almost four years ago disappeared to. These are niggling little amendments we are talking about. They will not solve basic problems; neither will they advance the cause of confederation very far.
I should like to raise another point. Really, it is a grievance that involves not only the western provinces but other provinces as well. Provinces ask why the federal government cannot, under a stabilization program, permit them to borrow directly from the Bank of Canada? They wonder why they cannot ask the federal government to raise resources on their behalf?


An hon. Member:: Bennett suggested that.


Max Saltsman: It is a sensible suggestion, no matter whether it was made by Premier Bennett or others. Why can the provinces not ask the federal government to do that, Mr. Speaker? That suggestion may be one of the few sensible suggestions the premier has made, and I am prepared to accept sensible suggestions no matter what their source, even from the hon. member who just spoke. When he has one of his own, I wish he would let me know.


An hon. Member:: You will wait for a long time.


Max Saltsman: Please, do not be too unkind. Mr. Speaker, why cannot this be done? Why must provinces be put in the position of having to go to money markets, at times, perhaps, when those markets are not ready for them? Why must the provinces pay higher rates of interest than the federal government could obtain on their behalf? Surely, that is the least assistance that the federal government should be prepared to offer.
The minister himself said that the measures in this bill will probably never come into effect and will probably never be required. The kind of stabilization I have spoken of the provinces need badly. In its management of the economy the federal government has tended to create unemployment, and provincial governments have wanted to take action in their own provinces to curb that unemployment through the introduction of accelerated building programs for hospitals, schools and so on. They need assistance, and the federal government should provide it. It should not give it directly, in the form of money; we are not asking for that. We are asking for the federal government to use its powers and its prestige in borrowing on behalf of the provinces. Such action would be in line with the suggestions of a former minister of finance who told Canadians to borrow in this country instead of borrowing in the United States, and thereby put less pressure on the Canadian dollar.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Why would a government not do that?


Max Saltsman: Who said that?
March 1, 1972


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker-


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, is the hon. gentleman rising to ask a question or to harangue?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: To ask a question, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member knows that he can ask a question only if he is allowed to by the hon. member who has the floor.

Is the hon. member for Waterloo prepared to accept a question?


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I am always pleased to accept a question from the hon. member for St. Boniface.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member referred to the possibility of provincial governments borrowing money through the federal government I ask, is he aware of the policy of the provincial government of Manitoba with regard to borrowing money? I believe that government has borrowed money in the United States. Does he consider that as foreign investment? When a government goes to the United States to borrow money and brings that money to Canada, does he consider that as foreign investment coming into this country?


Max Saltsman: I do not know whether the hon. member for St. Boniface realizes this or not, but he is making the very point I have tried to make in this House. I suggest that the province of Manitoba would like nothing better than being able to borrow its money in Canada, at favourable rates, if the federal government were to give that province access to credit at the Bank of Canada. The hon. member for St. Boniface is quite right in his concern. He knows that the people of this country, and the members of my party particularly, are enormously concerned about our going to the United States to borrow. We are enormously concerned, and we do not think we should borrow there unless it is absolutely a matter of survival. Actually, that is what is happening. The province of Manitoba does not want to borrow money in the United States. It wants to borrow money in Canada, but cannot do so because of bad government policies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Max Saltsman: I suggest to the hon. member for St. Boniface that his quarrel is not with me and that his question should not be directed to me. It should be directed to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner).


Mr. Benjamin:: Pay attention, Joe.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by indicating that some of the frictions which have come about in this country-I hope the hon. member for St. Boniface is not rising to ask another question.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I feel my question was not answered. I asked whether provincial government borrowings in the United States constituted foreign investment.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements


An hon. Member:: You couldn't understand that, anyway.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Could the hon. member say yes or no, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. An hon. member may answer a question in any way he wishes, and the hon. member who asked the question cannot quarrel about the answer he is given unless he is ready to seek the floor himself and make a speech.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the hon. member for St. Boniface does not understand what I have tried to explain. I know he experiences some difficulty with explanations. I shall be pleased to give him a private lesson in economics some other time.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Charge him for it.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise some other matters. I wish to talk about a prior condition, so to speak. This is an important point, although it is not included in any bill. Before any kind of equalization arrangement can properly be made, there must be full employment. A prior condition to such arrangement is a policy of full employment. In other words, the government must commit itself to full employment. If one looks at the history of frictions in sharing agreements one will find that frictions invariably occur when Canada is suffering from heavy unemployment. When there is full employment in this country there is not the same reluctance to share. It is much easier for provinces to be generous when everyone is doing well, and particularly when the richer provinces are doing well. When they are not doing well, when conditions are rough for them and they do not obtain the revenue they require for their own purposes, they begin looking for areas to criticize, areas in which they can reduce their commitments.
When speaking at a federal provincial conference on November 15, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said, and I hope I will be excused for paraphrasing, that there is a vast sum of money being transferred, an amount which represented 6.7 per cent of the total budget of the federal government. In his view, this is a very large sum of money. What the Prime Minister did not say, and perhaps should have said, is that as a result of the policies of his government which have created unemployment in this country, the losses to all governments in terms of revenue has been over $1 billion annually, more than the entire cost of the equalization program.
If we had a policy of near full employment and had brought our level of unemployment down to 3 per cent, which was recommended as a minimum by the Economic Council of Canada, the federal government could have doubled all the equalization payments across Canada. This is something that has to be grasped by this government when making its deliberate calculations to throw people out of work. When there is unemployment, all kinds of things start going wrong. People who are normally amenable to suggestions suddenly start saying that charity begins at home. People who might be inclined to share begin to say that their needs are also great. A
446

March 1, 1972
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
psychology is created in the country which is destructive of the better instincts of the people.
I wish to emphasize another aspect which is not yet in the bill, but should be an intregal part of any equalization policy. Freight rates across Canada must be equalized if this country is to survive. There must be maximum amounts allowed on the movement of any goods, not just wheat or grain. Something is being done in those fields because we recognize the merit and justice of doing it. All goods should move at equalized rates across the country. Perhaps if we did that, we would remove some of the great anomalies that exist between one part of the country and another. Perhaps it would cause a great many less problems than DREE and other programs in which we are involved. This would enable people in any part of to Canada effectively compete in the central markets of Canada and the international markets of the world. This is all they are asking. They are asking that the disadvantages be removed, not that they receive subsidies, bonuses or industrial grants. They want to start off reasonably equal. I can think of some plants in the Maritimes that have closed for only one reason. The cost of shipping their goods to the central market was too high. Had there been an equalization program of freight rates, a great deal more could have been accomplished.
I see that Your Honour is going to rise. At the time Your Honour rises to announce that my time has drawn to a close, possibly you could ask if the House will consent to my continuing. I will not be very long.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Does the House give consent to the hon. member completing his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Max Saltsman: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I also thank members opposite for according me this courtesy.
The matter of equalization of freight rates is of paramount importance. If freight rates were to be similar in terms of distance, so that distance would not be a disadvantage, many areas of Canada that were once prosperous would not be declining today. We forget that the maritimes was once a prosperous part of this country. It was only when the central market in Ontario developed, as well as the market between Ontario and the northern United States, that the Maritimes began to suffer a decline. If freight rates equalized distance, we could solve a great number of our problems.
We should recall that this country was built in defiance of geography. The lines of trade always wanted to run north and south. In order to build a nation, we insisted that they go east and west. We never followed the logic of that argument by saying since the country was made in that particular way that transportation, rail and air in particular, should be operated as a public utility, paid for out of the taxes rather than the phoney kind of corporations now in operation. I go further. Not only should freight rates be equalized for all industrial products, but this equalization principle should be extended to passenger service as well. It should be possible for people who live on one shore of Canada to travel across this beautiful land to the other shore without having to pay the present enormous transportation costs. If we are serious about tying this nation closely together, and about getting

people from the east and west as well as the English and French speaking Canadians to know each other better, we must have a more intelligent transportation policy than that which now prevails.
It is ridiculous when a national airline such as Air Canada follows the examples of other airlines and makes it less expensive for Canadians to travel an equivalent distance to Europe than to travel in their own country. The opposite should be true. Perhaps we should extend this to tourists from outside Canada. We should be prepared to tell them that if they visit Canada their travel will be made easier in order to give them an opportunity to see this great land of ours. This is very important. It has been part of the program of my party for a long time, and I think it has also been the position of the western provinces.
Some of the eastern provinces have argued in favour of preferential rates. I do not like that. It is not preferential. We must remember that parts of Canada which are poor today may be rich tomorrow, just as parts of Canada that were rich yesterday are poor today. In fact, in nation building there is no assurance that the rich will always be rich and the poor will always be poor. Those provinces which today are handing out money through equalization payments may at some time in the future be the recipients of such payments. The suggestions which we make are not charitable suggestions.
I want to repeat my earlier argument that we must remove the subsidies to private industry through programs such as DREE, which do very little good, and tackle the problem in another way. We have to set up some kind of national standard in order to avoid the provinces being pushed into the position of having to barter off their livelihood one against the other out of desperation. Part of that arises from the inadequacy of the equalization formula, but part of it arises from the desperation of the situation in which they find themselves.
We have to put some teeth into the equalization formula so that if a province with natural resources does not take the tax from those resources to which it is entitled, it should be penalized. This may be a rather harsh position to take, but unless we take this position we are going to encounter a great deal of opposition from those provinces which are fairly taxing their resources. Their argument will continue to be against those provinces which are not matching their taxing position.
The federal government must change its present laws and tax all industries alike. Resource industries must be in the same kind of tax position as the manufacturing industries, otherwise there will be the same kind of resentment that now exists in the manufacturing provinces. The manufacturing industry feels that it is being treated unfairly. It feels it is paying a much larger share of taxes than are other primary industries, and it obviously is.
If we do some of these things, if we make a commitment to total equalization, we could move the country forward. Obviously, for some provinces equality of opportunity is not enough; it means nothing except the perpetuation of poverty. We must commit ourselves to equality of education. Just as is the case with respect to individuals in one family, we must ensure that one province is treated equal-
March 1, 1972

ly as compared with another and that the rich support those who are not so rich. Only then can we move toward a national policy. An attempt should be made to lessen the emphasis placed on mineral extraction and lay greater emphasis on employment-producing jobs in the manufacturing industry. To provinces which are heavily dependent on resource industries we could offer a new transportation policy which would enable them to get more industry than before. To the extent that revenues of a province declined as a result in change in national policy, lost revenues would be made up by revenues from provinces whose position had improved.
The minister is a new minister. He is a young man trying to get ahead. He is trying to make prime minister. I hope he succeeds. He is somewhat more polite than the present one. He might just break the jinx. This is the new minister's opportunity to make a hero of himself and find
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements some bold and imaginative approach to problems which have been largely ignored by his predecessors. We, on this side, wish him well and are offering him able advice as to what he should do, and we hope he accepts it.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, since the former speaker has left me only four minutes, might I declare that it is six o'clock so that I may continue my remarks tomorrow?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Does the House agree that it is six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It being six o'clock, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow afternoon at 2 p.m.
At 5.56 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
448

March 1, 1972



APPENDIX A


[Stage Direction]
To The Honourable The Commons of Canada In Parliament Assembled:
The Petition of the undersigned members of the aboriginal people of the Old Crow Indians, in that area known to your honourable House as the Yukon Territory, who now avail ourselves of our ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your Petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy.
SHEWETH:
That for so long that the mind of man runneth not to the contrary and for so long as the waters of the Old Crow and Porcupine Rivers have flowed, and flowing mingled, for so long have the people of the Old Crow occupied those lands that lie south of the British Mountains, west of the Richardson Mountains and north of the Ogilvy Mountains;
That these lands are not included in the documents of title under which Canada defines its boundaries either through the purchase of the territorial rights of the Hudson's Bay Company in Rupert's Land, as defined in the Rupert's Land Act, 1868, of the statutes of the United Kingdom, or through treaty purchase from the people of the Old Crow, or in any other wise or at all;
That Canada has trespassed and continues to trespass without lawful title or colour of right upon these lands of the people of the Old Crow, where the rivers flow westward to the Pacific Ocean, and, by such trespasses, asserts a legal title to these lands;
That your Petitioners, adopting for their own and incorporating by reference herein so much of the arguments of their brothers, the Nishga Indians of British Columbia, submitted in a cause now pending in the Supreme Court of Canada, as are applicable and pertinent to the subject
matter of this Petition, stipulate the distinction that the trespasses complained of in that cause are committed by a province of Canada while the trespasses complained of in this Petition are committed by Canada and are therefore proper to be presented to and considered by your honourable House;
That your Petitioners, by their Petition, do not submit themselves nor any other of the people of the Old Crow to the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada, or of any institution by that Parliament created, nor do your Petitioners, by their Petition, admit the authority of the Parliament of Canada, or of any institution by that Parliament created, to determine that any rights of the people of the Old Crow are either less or more;
That this Petition is presented to your honourable House to the end that your honourable House, upon consideration thereof, will resolve to respect the territorial integrity of the people of the Old Crow as by reference to our Prayer hereafter will more fully appear: so that thereby will your Petitioners be upheld in their belief that your honourable House, guided neither by the trivial considerations of commercial profit or commercial loss, will govern itself by the law of good faith which, as between peoples, must be the philosophy of their politics and the religion of their governments;
Wherefore your Petitioners PRAY that your honourable House will prevail upon Her Most Gracious Majesty's Canadian Government to cease and desist from the trespasses hereinbefore recited and to acknowledge and respect the aboriginal rights of the people of the Old Crow to their ancient tribal territories, and that your honourable House will provide such further and other relief in the premises as to your honourable House seems just and meet;
And your Petitioners now prayeth and will ever pray,
And your Petitioners have, and each of them hath, signed this 21 day of February, in the year of Our Lord One Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy-Two.
Abraham Peter, Band Councillor
John Kendi, Band Councillor
Charlie Abel, Chief
Edith Josie, Band Councillor
Lazarus Charlie, Band Councillor
March 1, 1972


[Stage Direction]
PROVINCE	1967-63^	1963-69^ . S Increase	1969-70^	% Increase	1970-71 ^	% Increase	1971-72(a) (b)	% Increase	% Increase from 1967-68urLD.	7.770,369	8,861,000 14.0	16,171,000	82.4	19,143,745	18.3	22,900,000	19.6	194.7P.E.I.	2,119,379	2,768,470 30.6	4,314,000	55.8	4,640,000	7.6	5,500,000	18.5	159.5Ii - 3 .	31 ,757,605	39,790,000 25.2	49,735,000	25.0	56,400,000	13.4	62,900,000	11.5	98.0N.B.	15,321,048	20,120,385 27.1	24,505,000	21.8	29,500,000	20.3	35,400,000	20.0	123.7qle.	254,762,028	302,736,806 18.8	370,906,000	22.5	421 ,200,000	13.6	494.100,000	17.3	93.9C.*;T.	297,307,779	399,219,254 34.2	497,182,000	24.5	601,139,000	20.9	670,000,000	11.4	125.3MAT.	36,285,544	45.993.846 26.7	53,543,000	16.4	66,883,000	24.9	73,400,403	9.7	102.2SAS.K.	40.2S9.976	47,501,400 17.9	47,818,000	0.7	60,860,000	27.2	65,255,740	7.2	62.0ALTA.	79,519,915	97,708,000 22.9	121 ,153,000	24.0	157,935,000	30.3	177,420,725	12.3	123.1S.C.	67,791,529	84,658,840 24.9	100,568,467	18.8	110,000,000	9.3	121 ,000,000	10.0	78.4TOTAL	833,425,572	1,049,358,001 25.9	1,285,895,467	22.5	1 ,527,700,745	18.8	1 ,727,876,868	1-3.1	107.3(-2} Based (b) Based	on final reports submitted by provinces, on latest estimates submitted .by provinces.	Department February 11	of the Secretary of State , 1972	TABLE 2.	FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT, 1967 (PART 11) TOTAL VALUE OF TRANSFER^ TO PROVINCES 1967-1972 ($OOCs)	PROVINCE	1967-68	1968-69	1959-70	1970-71	1971-72	% Increase from 1967-68NFLD.	7,500	9.443	11,567	13,742	15,542	107.2P.E.I.	1,635	2,058	2,521	2,995	3,387	107.1N.S.	15,879	19,895	24,858	28,200	31,450	98.0N.B.	9,300	11.709	14,344	17,041	19,273	107.2QUE.	127,381	151,369	135.453	210,600	247,050	93.9ONT.	148,654	199.610	248,591	300,570	335,000	125.3MAN.	18,143	22,997	25,772	33,442	36.700	102.2SASK.	20.145	23,751	23,909	30,430	32,628	62.0ALTA.	39,760	48,854	60,577	78,968	88,710	123.1B.C.	33,895	42,326	50,284	55,000	60,500	78.4TOTAL	422,293	532,014 (26.0%) 648,886	(22.0%) 770,938 (18.8%)	870,240	(12.9%) 106.3
(a) Represents the sum of value of tax abatement and equalization payments (Table 3) and value of cash adjustment payments (Table 4). It should be noted
that Nfld., P.E.I. and N.B. are on the per capita	Department of the Secretary of State
arrangement.	February 11, 1972
[Stage Direction]
March 1, 1972
TABLE 3.	FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT, 1967 (PART II)

[Stage Direction]
($000s)
[Stage Direction]
PROVINCE
[Stage Direction]
1967-68
[Stage Direction]
1968-69
[Stage Direction]
1969-70
[Stage Direction]
1970-71
[Stage Direction]
1971-72
[Stage Direction]
% Increase from 1967-68
[Stage Direction]
NFLD.
[Stage Direction]
5,394
[Stage Direction]
6,447
[Stage Direction]
7,485
[Stage Direction]
8,333
[Stage Direction]
9,295
[Stage Direction]
72.3
[Stage Direction]
P.E.I.
[Stage Direction]
557
[Stage Direction]
1,399
[Stage Direction]
1,607
[Stage Direction]
1,776
[Stage Direction]
1,962
[Stage Direction]
252.2
[Stage Direction]
N.S.
[Stage Direction]
8,185
[Stage Direction]
9,563
[Stage Direction]
11,184
[Stage Direction]
12,390
[Stage Direction]
13,661
[Stage Direction]
66.9
[Stage Direction]
N.B.
[Stage Direction]
6,716
[Stage Direction]
7.937
[Stage Direction]
9,158
[Stage Direction]
10,096
[Stage Direction]
11,156
[Stage Direction]
66.1
[Stage Direction]
QUE.
[Stage Direction]
62,894
[Stage Direction]
75,414
[Stage Direction]
87,809
[Stage Direction]
96,988
[Stage Direction]
107,026
[Stage Direction]
70.1
[Stage Direction]
out.
[Stage Direction]
97,343
[Stage Direction]
119,048
[Stage Direction]
137,383
[Stage Direction]
155,376
[Stage Direction]
175,391
[Stage Direction]
80.1
[Stage Direction]
MAN.
[Stage Direction]
10,371
[Stage Direction]
12,365
[Stage Direction]
14,354
[Stage Direction]
15,832
[Stage Direction]
17,484
[Stage Direction]
68.6
[Stage Direction]
SASK.
[Stage Direction]
7,370
[Stage Direction]
12,222
[Stage Direction]
10,375
[Stage Direction]
15,250
[Stage Direction]
16,444
[Stage Direction]
123.1
[Stage Direction]
ALTA.
[Stage Direction]
15,846
[Stage Direction]
19.046
[Stage Direction]
22,166
[Stage Direction]
24,591
[Stage Direction]
27,918
[Stage Direction]
76.1
[Stage Direction]
B.C.
[Stage Direction]
24,881
[Stage Direction]
30,108
[Stage Direction]
34,996
[Stage Direction]
39,072
[Stage Direction]
45,799
[Stage Direction]
84.0
[Stage Direction]
TOTAL
[Stage Direction]
239,5571
[Stage Direction]
293,6502
[Stage Direction]
336,5173
[Stage Direction]
379,7 5 44
[Stage Direction]
426.1365
[Stage Direction]
77.9
[Stage Direction]
1.
[Stage Direction]
Final estimate of tax abatement (March 1969) and equalization 2.
[Stage Direction]
Final estimate of tax abatement (March 1970) and equalization 3.
[Stage Direction]
Estimated in December 19694. Estimated in February 1971. 5. Estimated in July 1971
[Stage Direction]
(March 1970). (February 1971).
[Stage Direction]
Department of the Secretary of State February 11, 1972
[Stage Direction]
TABLE 4.
[Stage Direction]
FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT, 1967
[Stage Direction]
(PART II)
[Stage Direction]
VALUE OF
[Stage Direction]
CASH ADJUSTMENT PAYMENTS 1967-1972
[Stage Direction]
(SOOOs)
[Stage Direction]
PROVINCE
[Stage Direction]
1967-68
[Stage Direction]
1968-69
[Stage Direction]
1969-70
[Stage Direction]
1970-71
[Stage Direction]
1971-72
[Stage Direction]
% Increase from 1967-68
[Stage Direction]
NFLD.
[Stage Direction]
2,106
[Stage Direction]
2,996
[Stage Direction]
4,032
[Stage Direction]
5,359
[Stage Direction]
6,247
[Stage Direction]
195:6
[Stage Direction]
P.E.I.
[Stage Direction]
1,078
[Stage Direction]
659
[Stage Direction]
914
[Stage Direction]
1 ,'219
[Stage Direction]
1,425
[Stage Direction]
32.1
[Stage Direction]
N.S.
[Stage Direction]
7,694
[Stage Direction]
10,232
[Stage Direction]
13,684
[Stage Direction]
15,810
[Stage Direction]
17.789
[Stage Direction]
131.2
[Stage Direction]
N.B.
[Stage Direction]
2,584
[Stage Direction]
3,772
[Stage Direction]
5,186
[Stage Direction]
6,945
[Stage Direction]
8,117
[Stage Direction]
214.1
[Stage Direction]
QUE.
[Stage Direction]
64,487
[Stage Direction]
75,954
[Stage Direction]
97,644
[Stage Direction]
113,612
[Stage Direction]
140,024
[Stage Direction]
117.1
[Stage Direction]
ONT.
[Stage Direction]
51,311
[Stage Direction]
80,552
[Stage Direction]
111,203
[Stage Direction]
145,194
[Stage Direction]
159,609
[Stage Direction]
211.0
[Stage Direction]
MAN.
[Stage Direction]
7,772
[Stage Direction]
10,631
[Stage Direction]
12,418
[Stage Direction]
17,610
[Stage Direction]
19,216
[Stage Direction]
147.2
[Stage Direction]
SASK.
[Stage Direction]
12,775
[Stage Direction]
11,529
[Stage Direction]
13,534
[Stage Direction]
15,180
[Stage Direction]
16,184
[Stage Direction]
26.7
[Stage Direction]
ALTA.
[Stage Direction]
23,914
[Stage Direction]
29.808
[Stage Direction]
33,411
[Stage Direction]
54,377
[Stage Direction]
60,792
[Stage Direction]
154.2
[Stage Direction]
B.C.
[Stage Direction]
9,015
[Stage Direction]
12,221
[Stage Direction]
15.288
[Stage Direction]
15,928
[Stage Direction]
14,701
[Stage Direction]
63.0
[Stage Direction]
TOTAL
[Stage Direction]
182,736
[Stage Direction]
233.354
[Stage Direction]
312,369
[Stage Direction]
391,234
[Stage Direction]
444,104
[Stage Direction]
143.0
[Stage Direction]
Department of the Secretary of State February II, 1972
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 2, 1972.