1973-02-21

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Duncan M. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I ask the indulgence of the House to salute the 92 members of our armed forces to be honoured by the Governor General at Rideau Hall tonight. There they will participate in the investiture of the Order of Military Merit, a distinguished award for meritorious military service.
I understand that a number of the recipients are in the gallery today, and since only two of the 92 are of the fairer sex I am sure hon. members will not object to my naming Captain Edna Stokes, from the beautiful riding of Hamilton Mountain, for singular attention.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Allan ]. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, I thought it might be best to raise the point I am about to raise on motions. It has to do with certain discussions that have taken place about the length of speeches in the budget debate. I believe the whips have discussed a possible time limitation for each category of participants as follows. Party leaders would be limited to 40 minutes each and official spokesmen for parties and ministers would be limited to 30 minutes, but in either of these categories the time could be extended with the consent of the House. All other members would be limited to 15 minutes, without any opportunity to ask the House for additional time. The purpose really is to provide for the greatest possible participation in the debate. I thought I might make known to the House the purport of the discussions so that the proposal might be put in the form of a House order later if it is found to be agreeable.
Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, we would like to take this proposal under advisement for today, in any event. We might be able to get in touch with the government House leader later today for further discussion of the matter.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Peace River can see his way clear later today to agree to the proposal, may I indicate in
advance that we will be happy to agree to it being made a House order.


Mr. Fortin:: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that our party agrees with this arrangement.


INTRODUCTION OF REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND ORGANIZATION
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order which is also related to House business. In view of the two or three discussions we have had during the past week or two and the commitment by the President of the Privy Council with respect to the immediate establishment of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization so that it can deal with the many questions that have concerned members on both sides of the House, particularly with respect to the operation of the question period and other related matters, can the government House leader indicate if we can expect the terms of reference to establish this committee to appear on the order paper within the next day or so?


Hon. Allan I. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I have the terms of reference prepared and am hoping to have them examined at a meeting of House leaders which I hope will take place later today or early tomorrow morning.



CITIZENSHIP


Duncan M. Beattie: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. At the present time there are many long-time residents of Canada who valiantly served this country, some through two world wars, in the Canadian Armed Forces and who will soon lose their right to vote if they do not apply for Canadian citizenship. I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds):
That anyone who has served with the Canadian Armed Forces and is the recipient of an honourable discharge be granted immediate Canadian citizenship.

February 21, 1973
Citizenship


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain. Under the terms of Standing Order 43 this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



FINANCE


Mr. Oza Tetrault (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I should like to move a motion bringing to the attention of the House a matter of pressing-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hees:: Did you slip on a banana, Joe?


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond rising on a question of privilege?


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, because of the appearance of the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay), I want to assure all members of the House that I had nothing to do with it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Oza Tétrault: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of Standing Order 43, I should like to move a motion to bring to the attention of the House a matter of pressing necessity, the importance of which the government seems to have overlooked when it brought down the budget.
I am thinking of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials which prevents Canadians from owning their own homes. I move, therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin):
That this House study as soon as possible the possibility and urgency of repealing the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials to enable all Canadians who so desire to build single-unit dwellings at a decent price taking into account their limited family income.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion of the hon. member. Under Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent. Is the House unanimous?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As the House is not unanimous, the motion may not be put.



INFORMATION


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask for unanimous consent of the House to present a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of citizens' entitlement to objective information in order to safeguard their freedom, in view also of the importance of the media in our daily life and following the recent agreement between Canadian broadcasters and security services in Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin):
That this House instruct the Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts to examine all causes of the agreement entered into by broadcasters and security services of Canada, particularly in case of a national emergency, as well as all potential effects on the level of freedom of Canadians and on their right to objective information, and to report to the House within the shortest possible delay.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion brought forward by the hon. member. Under Standing Order 43, it requires unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimity and therefore the motion cannot be put.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 to request the unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion on an issue of national urgency.
As automation plays a leading part in our economy, as an increasing number of Canadian citizens find themselves jobless without any possibility of finding work and without financial resources as soon as they reach the critical age of 55, and as this problem is getting more serious every day and no permanent solution seems to be applied at this time, I propose, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise):
That this House instruct the Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs to make a thorough examination of the situation existing in the case of this group of people aged 55 and over, to analyse the possibilities of lowering old age security pensionable age to 60 and to report to this House.
February 21, 1973


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Under Standing Order 43, this motion requires unanimous consent from the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is not unanimity, the motion cannot be put.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Mather: 1.	What was the federal revenue from taxes on cigarette tobacco in 1971?
2.	What was the federal expenditure in 1971 on non-smoking projects?
3.	What was the federal expenditure in the past two years in aid to improve Canadian tobacco crops?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Departments of National Revenue, National Health and Welfare and Agriculture as follows: 1.
1.	Cigars
Fiscal Year	Excise	Tax	Excise	Duty	Total1970- 71	
$ 5,026,412.49	$ 1,248,346.20	$ 6,274,758.691971-	72	
4,951,044.69	1,199,133.00	6,150,177.69
Cigarettes
Fiscal Year	Excise	Tax	Excise	Duty	Total1970-	71	
$295,976,146.78	$204,167,554.10	$500,143,700.881971-	72	
306,231,040.69	213,173,852.10	519,404,892.79
All Manufactured Tobacco
Fiscal Year	Excise	Tax	Excise	Duty	Total1970-	71	
$18,411,045.09	$ 6,710,140.38	$25,121,185.471971-	72	
18,938,651.83	6,970,524.75	25,909,176.58
Order Paper Questions
All manufactured tobacco includes such products as cigarette tobacco, pipe tobacco, snuff, chewing tobacco.
No record is maintained of the sales tax levied on cigarette tobacco.
2.	The total expenditure in 1971 on non-smoking projects was $381,271.
3.	Fiscal Year	Expenditure
1970- 71	 $ 799,800
1971- 72	 $ 965,800


STUDY OF EMERGENCY PROCEDURES BY LIEUTENANT-GENERAL DARE
Mr. Rowland: 1.	Has the study of emergency procedures conducted by Lieutenant-General Dare been completed and submitted for consideration?
2.	What are the terms of reference for the study?
3.	Is it the intention to continue the employment of the former Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff as (a) a public servant, on contract (b) an Order in Council appointment to the staff of the Privy Council or Prime Minister's Office?
4.	What will be the status of the conclusions of the Dare Study in relation to the Report by the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, as tabled on June 29, 1972?
5.	Will the Standing Committee be given the opportunity of reviewing and commenting on General Dare's recommendations?
6.	Will General Dare's report be made public?
7.	Will portions of the report or summary of its findings be made public and, if so, which ones?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: 1. General Dare has submitted a summary of his major findings and conclusions and is now in the process of completing his report.
2.	On May 1, 1972, General Dare was given the following terms of reference:
In general to carry out the Cabinet decision of July 22, 1971, that "a study be initiated into the subject of crisis-handling methods and structures within the federal government with a view to determining the means whereby better control and co-ordination among departments and agencies in the handling of natural and man-made disasters can be effected."
To study and report on the problems of recognizing and defining "crisis-indicators" and of criteria which must be applied for any event and/or a trend to require crisis management action.
To study and report on crisis-sensing techniques and methods and techniques of crisis decision-making.
To study and report on the current state of crisis-management preparedness including such problems as control, co-ordination, communications, facilities and ministerial responsibilities and authorities.

Order Paper Questions
To study and report on the criteria which must apply in any crisis situation before the Prime Minister and the Cabinet would be required to exercise and perform emergency powers.
To study and report on such physical, organizational and procedural preparations as may be required to enable the Prime Minister and the Cabinet to exercise and perform emergency powers when a natural or man-made crisis occurs.
That for the purpose of this study LGEN Dare will be seconded to the Privy Council Office effective May 1, 1972, with necessary office space and equipment to be provided by the Privy Council Office and with a combination of loaned and seconded staff, providing that in the case of seconded staff the approval of the Director of Administration, PCO, will be required.
3.	Lieutenant-General Dare was seconded to the Privy Council Office from the Department of National Defence for the purpose indicated above. It is not intended to continue his employment there or in the Prime Minister's Office.
4.	In view of the terms of reference described above, it is expected that the conclusions of the Dare report will deal peripherally with some of the matters embodied in the Report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. By virtue of the terms of reference, the Dare study will have examined a much broader area. Until such time as the report has been studied it is not possible to say what the status of its conclusions will be in relation to the Standing Committee's report of June 29, 1972.
5.	This is a matter that will be considered after the government has had an opportunity to consider the report itself.
6.	It is the intention of the government to make the report public in due course. It is possible that some parts of it could raise security considerations which would have to be examined, but it seems likely that virtually all of the report can be released. Until such time as the report has been considered by the government, public disclosure will not be made.
7.	Yes. A full summary of findings will be made public in due course.


EXPORT OF WHEAT UNDER AGREEMENTS WITH MAINLAND CHINA AND THE U.S.S.R.
Mr. Diefenbaker: As of (a) July 31, 1972 (b) December 31, 1972, what were the estimates by the Wheat Board of the number of bushels of wheat of grades available for export under the several agreements with Mainland China and the U.S.S.R. in storage (i) on farms (ii) in elevators of all kinds?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Millions of Bushels
Grade	a(i)	a(ii)	b(i)	b(ii)1 CWRS	203	151	242	1532 CWRS	59	56	82	483 CWRS	17	20	63	37ARW	2	1	2	21 and 2 Durum	10	20	14	123 Durum	11	5	24	9Ex 4 Durum	5	9	10	54 Durum	2	3	12	4

The foregoing quantities are estimates based on figures published by Statistics Canada and the Canadian Grain Commission, pro-rated as to grade in conformity with Wheat Board estimates by grade resulting from data provided to the Board by elevator managers. They represent the estimated total available stocks in all positions out of which the necessary quantities are being drawn to fill existing contracts with the People's Republic of China and the U.S.S.R. as well as all commitments to other purchasers.


WHEAT SHIPMENTS-DEMURRAGE CHARGES
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	What was the total amount paid for demurrage by the Wheat Board in 1972 for ships which were held up in Vancouver Harbour awaiting wheat cargoes?
2.	Is the Wheat Board to receive payment of said amount from the Government of Canada or, if not, is it to be considered as a marketing expense which will come out of the farmer producers?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. $2,326,469.25.
2.	Where demurrage is incurred for the account of the Canadian Wheat Board, it is considered to be a marketing expense payable out of the Canadian Wheat Board pool accounts. Whether this amount comes out of sales proceeds or from the government of Canada depends on whether a particular account is in deficit or surplus.


CANADIAN AGRICULTURAL SALES AND PROMOTION ABROAD
Mr. Wise: 1.	What government agencies are presently used in the promotion of agricultural export sales and in what countries are they now active?
2.	What percentage of Canadian agricultural production is now being sold in the export market?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister or Industry. Trade and Commerce):: 1. Government departments and agencies currently used in the promotion of agricultural sales abroad are the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Canadian Wheat Board. Promotions are pursued in all potential markets, particularly in those countries where Canada has Canadian Government Trade Commissioner Offices.
2.	Preliminary estimates place the farm value of Canadian primary agricultural production in calendar year 1971 at $4.53 billion. The value of export sales of agricultural and food products during the same period reached a record of $1.98 billion. Export sales which include processed products as well as farm products account for 44 per cent of the farm value of agricultural production.
February 21, 1973


WHEAT SHIPMENTS-DEMURRAGE CHARGES
Mr. Gleave: What is the total amount in demurrage charges that have been paid by the Canadian Wheat Board at the Port of Vancouver in the crop year (a) 1969-1970 (b) 1970-71 (c) 1971-72?


Otto Emil Lang: (a) 1969-70, $543,178; (b) 1970-71, $150,161; (c) 1971-72, $1,805,034.19.
Order Paper Questions
2. Was an investigation carried out and, if so, how long did it last?


Hon. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to question No. 189, Air Canada has not discovered any disappearance or loss of postal bags from Flight 556 between Rouyn and Montreal. Provided with more details, Air Canada might make a more detailed investigation.


TARIFF BOARD-RESEARCH EXPENDITURES
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72 by the Tariff Board on contracts to outside persons and organizations for research, development and other consulting services?
2.	What are the names and addresses of these outside persons and organizations and what amounts of money were involved in each contract?
3.	What was the purpose of each contract and title of each report submitted?
4.	What are the names and addresses of outside persons and organizations who were awarded contracts for research, development and other consulting services in the current fiscal year, what are the amounts of money involved in each case and what is the purpose of each contract?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: 1. 1968-69, $9,179.30; 1969-70, $9,207.36; 1970-71, $13,384.15; 1971-72, $11,142.30.
2.	Nethercut & Young Limited, Reporting Service, 48 York Street, Toronto, Ontario, $8,456.30; Graham Mail Delivery Service, 51 Fentiman Ave., Ottawa, Ontario, $723; 1968-69 Total: $9,179.30; Nethercut & Company Limited, 48 York Street, Toronto, Ontario, $8,470.96; Graham Mail Delivery Service, 51 Fentiman Ave., Ottawa, Ontario, $736.40; 1969-70 Total: $9,207.36; Nethercut & Company Limited, 48 York Street, Toronto, Ontario, $4,139.40; B. Prouse Reporting Service, 36 Orchard View Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario, $8,140; Sound Enterprises, 2831 Bank Street, Ottawa, Ontario, $360; Graham Mail Delivery Services, 51 Fentiman Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario, $744.75; 1970-71 Total: $13,384.15; B. Prouse Reporting Service, 33 Castle Knock Road, Toronto, Ontario, $10,156.20; Sound Enterprises, 2831 Bank Street, Ottawa, Ontario, $264; Graham Mail Delivery Service, 51 Fentiman Ave., Ottawa, Ontario, $722.10; 1971-72 Total: $11,142.30.
3.	Reporting Services to provide the Department with Transcripts from the Court Hearings of the Tariff Board and Mail delivery Service.
4.	To January 31, 1973: B. Prouse Reporting Services, 33 Castle Knock Road, Toronto, Ontario, Transcripts of Court Hearings, $3,781.85; Graham Mail Delivery Service, 51 Fentiman Ave., Ottawa, Ontario, $542.30; Total: $4,324.15.


FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO STARCH PLANTS AND POTATO INDUSTRY IN MARITIME PROVINCES
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Has the government received any requests for assistance towards the construction of starch plants in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island and, if so, from whom?
2.	What has been the response to such requests?
3.	What have been the measures of assistance rendered to the potato industry by the government in these provinces?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Departments of Regional Economic Expansion and Industry, Trade and Commerce as follows: 1. No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce provides assistance to Canadian industry and trade through a number of industrial and trade development programs. Extensive use of these programs and trade services has been made by the potato industry in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. The assistance has included export market surveys and studies, incoming and outgoing trade missions, trade fairs abroad, promotional brochures, seed potato trials abroad, industrial research and technology and the continuing trade services of the Department in Canada and trade commissioner offices abroad. The following development incentives under the Regional Development Incentives Act have been accepted for potato processing facilities:
Name
Amount	Location
McCain Foods Ltd.	$6,128,612
McCain Foods Ltd.	443,900
F.	J. Shea & Son Ltd.	40,250
Seabrooks Foods Inc.	827,000
Eric Robinson Inc.	81,544
Langley Fruit Packers	22,060
Florenceville, N.B. Florenceville, N.B. St. Louis, P.E.I. New Annan, P.E.I. Albany, P.E.I. Montague, P.E.I.
In Prince Edward Island, assistance has been provided to the industry in the areas of production extension and research, farm capital expansion and marketing. Studies are still being carried out with respect to New Brunswick.


POST OFFICE-DISAPPEARANCE OF POSTAL BAGS FROM AIR CANADA FLIGHT 556
Mr. Laprise: 1.	What was the date of Air Canada Flight 556 between Rouyn and Montreal where the disappearance of postal bags was discovered?


PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE-REGIONAL DESKS
Mr. Cossitt: What are the number of Regional Desks in the Prime Minister's Office and (a) by what names are these designated (b) what was their total cost from the date of their creation in each case to January 11, 1973?

February 21, 1973
Order Paper Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Four, (a) and (b) Western Canada, $142,652; Quebec, $111,864; Ontario, $66,556; Atlantic Provinces, $84,118.


INFORMATION FILES ON MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. Cossitt: Have any persons employed by, attached to, or on loan to the Prime Minister's Office compiled information files of any kind on any persons serving as Members of Parliament since April 20,1968 and, if so (a) what are the names of such Members of Parliament (b) for what reason were the files compiled?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Apart from maintaining files of current biographical material on Members of the Liberal Caucus, the Prime Minister's Office does not compile information files on individual Members of Parliament, nor does it authorize persons employed by it, attached to or on loan to it, to do so.


POSSIBILITY OF LOANS TO PROVINCES BEARING ADMINISTRATIVE INTEREST
Mr. Beaudoin: Is the government considering the possibility of loans to the provinces bearing an administrative interest?


John Napier Turner: No.


POSSIBILITY OF LOANS TO MUNICIPALITIES BEARING AN ADMINISTRATIVE INTEREST
Mr. Beaudoin: Is the government considering the possibility of interest free loans or loans bearing an administrative interest to Canadian municipalities?


John Napier Turner: No.


TOTAL DEBT OWED TO CANADA BY FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS, APRIL 30,1970
Mr. Beaudoin: On April 30, 1970, what was the total amount owed to the government by foreign governments?


John Napier Turner: On March 31, 1970 (end of fiscal year) foreign governments owed to Canada $1,661,721,359.


TREMBLAY ET LOCKEN INC., LA TUQUE
Mr. Matte: Is there a federally incorporated company by the name of Tremblay et Locken Inc., at 687 Castelneau St., in La Tuque and, if so (a) when was it incorporated (b) who are its shareholders (c) what is its equity capital (d) has the company regularly produced its income tax return and, if not, in what year did it not do so (e) were there any transfers of shares and, if so, on what date and in whose favour?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Departments of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and National Revenue as follows: (a) Tremblay et Locken Inc. is not a federally incorporated company; it was incorporated provincially under the Quebec Companies Act in September, 1961 under the name Dowally Construction Company Ltd. The actual name was granted on August 27, 1962. (b), (c) and (d) Not applicable, (e) Because of the secrecy provisions contained in the Income Tax Act, the Department of National Revenue (Taxation) cannot provide an answer to this question.


WETASKIWIN, ALBERTA-RELOCATION OF TRACKS
Mr. Schellenberger: Has the City of Wetaskiwin, Alberta, requested to have railway tracks running through the centre of the City relocated for safety, traffic and aesthetic reasons and, if so, will the government give favourable consideration to assisting the City and the CPR in proceeding upon an immediate relocation of the tracks?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows. The city of Wetaskiwin, Alberta, has advised the Canadian Transport Commission of its intention to apply for relocation outside of the city limits of the Canadian Pacific Edmonton/Calgary main line. Under existing legislation there is no provision by which the Canadian Transport Commission can provide financial assistance for the relocation of railway trackage unless the proposed relocation involves the elimination of a crossing at grade, which is eligible for a grant under the Railway Grade Crossing Fund. On October 10, 1972, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of State for Urban Affairs announced that parliament will be asked to approve legislation that would permit the Canadian Transport Commission to make grants for the relocation of railway lines outside of urban areas. In the event that such legislation is approved by parliament, an application by the city of Wetaskiwin for relocation of the CP main line would be considered in accordance with whatever criteria may be established under such legislation.


INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH ON PUBLIC POLICY
Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has the government extended any further money to the Institute for Research on Public Policy, apart from the initial $950,000 grant?
2.	To what extent have private contributions to the Institute matched any government grants?
3.	(a) What are the names and salaries of each individual on the Institute's Board of Directors (b) what criteria were used by the government in selection of the directors?
4.	Is it the intention of the government to table a progress report on the Institute during the current session of Parliament?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1. Apart from the initial start up grant of $950,000 the government has made payments of $300,000 to the Institute's endowment fund to match private contributions in accordance with its commitments.

February 21, 1973

2.	The government is committed to match dollar for dollar contributions received by the Institute for its endowment fund from other sources up to a total of $10 million over a period of seven years from its incorporation.
3.	(a) The members of the Board of Directors, including the Chairman, do not receive any salary or remuneration for their services other than reimbursement for actual expenses incurred in discharging the business of the Institute. The names of the Directors are: Mrs. Doris Anderson, Mr. David Black, Hon. J. V. Clyne, Mr. Paul Desmarais, Mr. Louis Desrochers, Dr. John Deutsch, Mr. G.	H. D. Hobbs, Miss Madeleine Joubert, Mr. Louis Lor-rain, Dr. John F. McCreary, The Most Rev. J. N. MacNeil, Mr. Allan O'Brien, Mrs. Marilyn Pilkington, Miss Kathleen Richardson, Mr. Ronald S. Ritchie, Hon. John P. Robarts, Mr. Eldon Thompson, Mr. Marc-Adelard Tremblay, Mr. Norman Ward, (b) None of the Directors has been appointed by the government since the institute is established as a private corporation under Part II of the Canada Companies Act.
4.	As the Institute is a private corporation the government is not in a position to make a progress report on it. It is understood that the Institute will report to its members annually as required by the Canada Companies Act and that these reports will be made public.


STUDY OF ECOLOGICAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF JAMES BAY PROJECT
Mr. Godin: Has the government made a grant to Indians and Eskimos of the Province of Quebec for the study of the ecological and sociological effects of the James Bay Project and, if so (a) in what amounts (b) were such amounts adequate?


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: (a) The
government has agreed to make an accountable contribution to the Indians of Quebec Association in an amount not to exceed $250,000 to enable that Association to undertake research on aspects of the potential and natural effect of the James Bay project on the native people of the project area and related matters, (b) It is too early to assess if assistance given under agreement is adequate; study is still being carried out.


'AUDITOR GENERALS' BUDGET AND STAFF LEVELS
Mr. Reynolds: Has the President of the Treasury Board considered the possible exemption of the Auditor General from Treasury Board authority in the matter of budget and staff levels as stated in news release dated December 5, 1972 and, if so (a) what is the present status of the matter (b) on what date will an announcement be made?


John Mercer Reid: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker, (a) The final paragraph of the press release of December 5, 1972 repeated the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts in its first report to the House of March 22, 1972, that the House give further reference to the committee to draft recommendations for an Auditor General's Act. An order of reference for this purpose was
Order Paper Questions
made March 27, 1972 and the public accounts committee set up a committee of lawyers representing the Senate, the House of Commons and the Department of Justice; together with a lawyer from the private sector representing the Auditor General, to hear submissions from interested parties and to recommend the draft for a bill. This committee is still active but is not required to issue any reports in advance of its recommendations to the public accounts committee. The President of the Treasury Board has met with this committee and now awaits the recommendations for the draft bill to be reported on by the public accounts committee, (b) Following the presentation to the House by the public accounts committee of its report on the recommendations for the draft bill.


QUEBEC-FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR PROMOTION OF SHEEP BREEDING
Mr. Latulippe: Since January 1, 1970, what was the total amount of grants to farmers for the promotion of sheep breeding in the Province of Quebec and what was the average amount granted per farmer?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Quebec sheep producers received grants totalling $222,377 in the form of transportation assistance for breeding stock, lamb carcass premiums and deficiency payments, representing an average of $107.95 per farmer raising sheep in 1971.


MILITARY BASE, CHILLIWACK, B.C.
Mr. Latulippe: 1.	How many years has the military base of Chilliwack in British Columbia, been in operation?
2.	How many officer cadets attended courses and how many were commissioned?
3.	What is the weekly salary of an officer cadet?
4.	How many personnel are employed there full time?


Hon. lames Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: 1.	The military base of Chilliwack was established as a Military Engineering Training Centre in April 1942. In 1969, the Canadian Forces Officer Candidate School (CFOCS) was located at CFB Chilliwack.
2.	From May 1969 to December 1972 the total intake at the Canadian Forces Officer Candidate School was 2,574. Of this number 2,035 officer cadets graduated and 557 of the graduates were commissioned at Chilliwack. Of the 1,478 who proceeded to classification training, it is estimated that about 578 have now been commissioned, with the remaining 900 at various stages of academic and classification training. The Canadian Forces School of Military Engineering provides training in field and construction engineering and graduates approximately 850 military officers and men annually.
3.	Salary varies depending upon the scheme under which the Officer Cadet is serving; however, a cadet in the Regular Officer Training Plan (ROTP) receives $240275 per month. 4. There are a number of units administered by CFB Chilliwack, some co-located at the base and others located away from the base. Breakdown of the

Order Paper Questions
personnel strenghts of the units located at Chilliwack are as follows:
	Military	Civilian
Unit	Strength	StrengthCanadian Forces Base Chilliwack	417	536Canadian Forces School of	Military Engineering Chilliwack	124	103 FD Sqn Chilliwack (a Mobile	Command Combat Unit)	244	-11 Dent Unit Det Vedder Crossing	9	-Regional Medical Equipment Depot	Chilliwack	8	-740 Comm Sqn Det Chilliwack	6	-Training Command Management	Study Unit Det Chilliwack	2	-Canadian Forces Officer Cadet	School School Chilliwack	87	4TOTAL	897	555


DREE-GRANTS TO COMMODORE MOBIL HOMES, ST. JEAN, QUEBEC
Mr. Wagner: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion made a grant to Commodore Mobil Homes of St. Jean, Quebec and, if so, in what amount?
2.	How many jobs were created?
3.	What were the names of the directors and shareholders of Commodore Mobil Homes?


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. Yes. A development incentives grant of approximately $162,202, based on a rate of 10 per cent of the approved capital costs, estimated at $672,025, plus $500 for each job to be created, was accepted by the company on June 5, 1972.
2.	Estimated number of jobs to be created: 190
3.	Commodore Mobile Homes Ltd. is a wholly owned subsidiary of The Commodore Corporation. Commodore Mobile Homes Ltd. (Alberta) is the Canadian operating subsidiary of Rocket Trailers Ltd. (Ontario) which is a Canadian holding company of The Commodore Corporation (executive and operating offices, Omaha, Nebraska). The parent company is a public owned company with shares traded on the American Stock Exchange symbol CCT. The majority shareholders of the parent company are Meyer Katzman, Daniel Katsman, Morley Zipursky and James C. Foreman. The Directors of Rocket Trailers Ltd. are: Daniel Katzman, Morley Zipursky, Sylvia Jess. The Directors of Commodore Mobile Homes Ltd. are: Daniel Katzman, Morley Zipursky, J. C. Foreman.


DREE-GRANTS TO LENNOX PAPER LIMITED
Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Is it the intention of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to proceed with incentive grants to Lennox Paper Limited?
2.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion any intention of meeting with representatives from Canada's paper industry to discuss any misgivings concerning development incentive grants to Lennox Paper Limited?


Marcel Prud'homme: 1. A development incentives grant of approximately $870,000, calculated on the basis of 16 per cent of the approved capital costs plus $3,000 for each of the estimated 53 jobs to be created, was accepted by Lennox Paper Limited. This offer is subject to conditions specified under the provisions of the Regional Development Incentives Act. If all the provisions of the legislation are met, the authorization of payment will be processed in the usual manner.
2. As a matter of policy, the Department does not discuss the details of individual cases as this would be a breach of commercial confidentiality. However, a fair amount of correspondence has passed between representatives of the paper industry and the Department. The views of the industry are therefore known to the Department and have been taken into account.


PURCHASING POWER OF 1972 DOLLAR
Mr. Mather: With 1949 dollars as a basis, what was the purchasing power of the 1972 dollar?


John Napier Turner: The Consumer Price Index measures the percentage change through time in the cost of purchasing a constant quantity and combination of goods and services. Starting with 1961, the index is based on 1957 family expenditure patterns while for the years 1949 to 1960 the index is based on 1947-48 expenditure patterns. The differing weight base periods are arithmetically linked to the time base 1961 = 100. In 1949, the Consumer Price Index averaged 77.4 and in 1972 it averaged 139.8. Bearing in mind the different expenditure patterns for the index in 1949 and 1972, the purchasing power of the 1972 dollar, in terms of the 1949 dollar, would then be 55 cents.


SMALL FARM DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Howie: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to establish the National Small Farm Development Advisory Committee?
2.	By province, what is the total number of those who have received payments and the amount received by each under the Small Farm Development Program?


Eugene Whelan: 1. Yes.
2. The Farm Credit Corporation advises as follows: 1. Yes.

2.
Grants to Vendors Disbursements	Approvals
Number Amount Number Amount
Alberta	21	$60,120	88	$271,515Ontario	6	$15,950	20	$ 56,350
The difference between disbursements and approvals is the number in a pending category awaiting confirmation of the completion of the sale of the land.
Special Credit to Purchasers
Number Amount Alberta	33	$537,300Ontario	2	$ 32,600


MARITIME COMMAND-FUEL SHORTAGE
Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	Is there a fuel shortage for helicopters which is hindering operations of HS 50 at CFB Shearwater?
2.	How many of the "37" type helicopters are fully serviceable for the 60 pilots of HS 50 to fly?
3.	Are pilots allocated sufficient fuel to fly an average of 10 hours of practice monthly, and do they consider 20 hours monthly a minimum safety factor in order to be able to carry out missions and search and rescue operations?
4.	Was there a near disaster during a recent mission flown by members of HS 50 and, if so (a) what were the circumstances (b) was a full report ordered (c) did insufficient flying time contribute to such an incident?
5.	Is the government planning to allocate more fuel, and thus make more provision for flying time to the pilots of HS 50?
6.	Are any steps being taken to provide more fully serviceable helicopters to HS 50?
7.	Is there a severe morale problem in HS 50 and, if so, what steps are being taken to correct it?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1.	No.
2.	There are 36 Sea King Helicopters available at CFB Shearwater for flying operations. Sea King Helicopters are cared for under a flexible maintenance system which makes it possible to adjust maintenance activity to best cater for variations in operational requirements. Therefore, day to day serviceability figures are subject to wide variations and do not provide a meaningful gauge of aircraft availability. The serviceability of Sea King Helicopters has been such that HS 50 consistently meets its commitments for operational crews and aircraft. At the present time, however, with the exception of 2 modified aircraft embarked with the Standing Naval Force Atlantic, the Sea Kings are temporarily restricted from operating from HMC Ships pending the completion of an engineering analysis of the undercarriage area; this engineering study was undertaken following the collapse of a stub wing of a Sea King aboard HMCS Fraser in November 1972.
3.	HS 50 is allotted sufficient resources to permit each pilot to obtain an average of 25 hours flying per month. However, even more important than the number of hours flown each month is the completion of mandatory training exercises and a regular proficiency checking program, both of which are in effect at HS 50.
Order Paper Questions
4.	(a) There have been two Sea King Helicopter accidents during the past three months, one caused by the collapse of a sponson on a Helicopter aboard HMCS Fraser, and the other which appears to have been caused by the failure of a tail rotor in flight. There were no fatalities in either accident, (b) Yes. (c) No.
5.	No.
6.	See (2) above. A contract has been arranged to modify and strengthen the stub wings on all Canadian Armed Forces Sea King Helicopters.
7.	Morale is the product of many factors and it is the assessment of the responsible military authorities that the morale of personnel at HS 50 is good.


PROSECUTION OF IRVING NEWSPAPER INTEREST
Mr. Howie: What are the total accounts paid and time charged in respect to the prosecution of the Irving newspaper interest under the Combines Investigation Act?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Fees (Legal and Consultant), $56,727.50; Time charged: 108J days, 1,128.2 hours. Disbursements (Legal and Consultant), $19,947.98. (Includes $1,834.35 air fare and expenses of certain witnesses). Does not include time or expenses of Officers of the Director of Investigation and Research or departmental Legal Branch.


CANADIAN DAIRY COMMISSION PERSONNEL
Mr. McKenzie: 1.	How many women hold executive or professional employment with CDC?
2.	(a) What percentage of those categories are women (b) what percentage of all CDC employees are women?


Mr. Leopold Corriveau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: 1. Nil.
2.	(a) Not applicable; (b) 62 per cent.


PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE-MAILING EXPENSES
Mr. McKenzie: How much money was spent by the Prime Minister's Office for mailing in each month of 1972?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Prior to April 1, 1972 funds for general postage were included in estimates as a non-budgeting item. Since April 1, 1972 all mail has been metered on a machine installed for PMO/PCO. It is not possible to establish expenditure for PMO only.
^Recorded expenditures for 1972 are as follows: April, $1,476.80; May, $1,817.28; June, $1,556.69; July, $968.75; August, $1,021.33; September, $1,150.78; October, $1,658.49; November, $1,153.23; December, $1,053.68.


DREE-GRANTS TO PRETTY-POLLY, MONT-JOLI, QUEBEC
Mr. Allard: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion made any grants to Pretty-Polly, of Mont-Joli, Quebec, to create jobs?
2.	Is there an agreement between the Industrial Development Agency and Pretty-Polly?


Marcel Prud'homme: 1. The compa-

Order Paper Questions
ny accepted a combination of development incentives in the amount of $608,000 authorized under the provisions of the Regional Development Incentives Act.
2. The company has an agreement with General Trust of Canada acting as Trustee on behalf of the Quebec Industrial Development Corporation.


CROP LOSSES-LOTBINIERE CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Fortin: How many requests for compensation did the Department of Agriculture receive from the constituency of Lotbiniere in respect of designated regions following crop damage due to last year's rainfall.


Léopold Corriveau: As of January 12, 1973, 343.


DREE-GRANTS TO INDUSTRIES IN LOTBINIERE CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Fortin: In the past two years, how many industries in the constituency of Lotbiniere received grants following the creation of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion (a) how many grants per municipality (b) how much did each receive?


Marcel Prud'homme: From January 1, 1971 to December 31, 1972, 25 industries have accepted offers of development incentives authorized under the provisions of the Regional Development Incentives Act in the constituency of Lotbiniere, Quebec.
(a)	(b)
Name	Incentive
Arthabaska
Imprimerie d'Arthabaska	$ 22,500
Warwick
Warwick Ladders Inc.	29,970
Roland Boulanger & Cie Ltee	55,550
Princeville
Duval & Raymond Inc.	30,000
Sani-Chutes Lego Ltee	115,670
Prince-Caravane Inc.	109,400
Victoriaville
Royal Chesterfield (1966) Inc.	17,565
H.	P. Cyrenne Ltee	19,400*
Placements des Bois-Francs Inc.	6,300
Polyclar Inc.	20,601
Menuiserie Rive-Sud Inc.	42,600
J. M. Caya Ltee	15,300
Industech Inc.	30,000
Ventilateur Victoria Ltee	48,600
Daveluyville
National Underlay (1972) Inc.	53,520
Tricot P. G. Ltee	149,800
Robert Lapierre Ltee	55,850
Entreprises A. R. M. Ltee	37,550

(a)	(b)
Name	Incentive
Ste-Croix
Fonderie Ste-Croix Ltee	234,400
Val Alain
P. Bolduc & Fils Inc.	35,000
Laurier Station
Meubles Laurier Ltee	36,000
A. P. Furniture Industries Inc.	42,000
Ste-Eulalie
Yelles & Freres Enrg.	5,244
St-Samuel
J. A. Poulin	14,580
Confection Ideale Ltee	7,030
Ste-Marie
Vachon Inc.	160,407


AMENDMENTS TO SMALL BUSINESSES LOANS ACT
Mr. Cossitt: Is it the intention of the government to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act to permit (a) loans to small businesses in excess of the present $25,000 maximum and, if so, on what date can an announcement be expected (b) applications from small businesses with an estimated annual gross revenue in excess of $500,000 during the year in which an application is made and, if so, on what date can an announcement be expected?


John Napier Turner: The program of loans under the Small Businesses Loans Act is currently under review to determine what changes to it would be desirable. The maximum loan limits and the criteria for eligibility are among those factors which are being carefully examined. Changes in the program that the government decides to recommend will be submitted to Parliament for consideration when the review is completed.


DREE-DIONNE MOTOR SALES LTD., NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. Coates: 1.	Was Dionne Motor Sales Limited, or Maurice Dionne, eligible for a DREE grant, or loan, or both, in the renovation of a property occupied by that firm in Plaster Rock, New Brunswick?
2.	If such a grant, or loan, or both, were awarded, what was the amount, and on what basis was a determination made for the assistance provided?


Marcel Prud'homme: 1. The operation of an automobile dealership is not an eligible facility for a development incentive or a loan guarantee, under the provisions of the Regional Development Incentives Act.
2. N/A.


MARITIME SURVEY PROGRAM
Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	Is the government planning to continue the maritime survey program of our three coasts as well as the Great Lakes?
February 21, 1973

2.	What are the names and registry of the vessels now engaged in the maritime survey program?
3.	What are the names and registry of the vessels likely to be engaged in the maritime survey program over the next five years?


Mr. William Rompkey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: 1. Yes; in addition, projects are planned for various water areas in the Arctic Archipelago, the Great Lakes, the larger inland lakes and major waterways used by commercial and recreational traffic.
2. Vessels owned and chartered by the Marine Sciences Directorate are used to support various studies and frequently are engaged in more than one type of activity simultaneously.
Name of Vessel	Port of Registry	Based AtCSS Baffin	Ottawa	Dartmouth, N.S.CSS Hudson	Ottawa	Dartmouth, N.S.CSS Dawson	Ottawa	Dartmouth, N.S.CSS Maxwell	Ottawa	Dartmouth, N.S.CSS Advent	Ottawa	Burlington, Ont.CSS Limnos	Ottawa	Burlington, Ont.CSS Wm. J. Stewart	Ottawa	Victoria, B.C.CSS Parizeau	Ottawa	Victoria, B.C.CSS Richardson	Ottawa	Victoria, B.C.CSS Vector	Ottawa	Victoria, B.C.CSL Revisor	Victoria	Victoria, B.C.CSL Vedette	Burlington	Burlington, Ont.CSL LeMoyne	Burlington	Burlington, Ont.CSL Verity	Burlington	Burlington, Ont.CSL Surge	Burlington	Burlington, Ont.CSL Swift	Burlington	Burlington, Ont.CSL Tudik	Dartmouth	Dartmouth, N.S.
Vessels now under charter:
Name of Vessel Port of Registry Based At M/V Martin Karlsen	Canadian	RegistryM/V Lac Erie	Canadian	RegistryRadium Express	Canadian	Registry3.	The specific vessels which will be chartered	over the
next five years are not known at this time. The vessels selected will depend on which suitable vessels are available when requirements surface, the results of tender evaluations with particular emphasis on suitability and cost, area of operation and other factors. However, only Canadian registered vessels are chartered for support of these programs. It should be further noted that MOT vessels are sometimes used to support Marine Sciences Directorate programs when arrangements can be made that are suitable to both Departments.


OCEANOGRAPHIC VESSEL, &quot;WILLIAM J. STEWART&quot;
Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	What plans does the government have, over the next five to 10 years, for the oceanographic vessel William1 J. Stewart?
2.	If the government is planning to replace the William J. Stewart, what alternate plan does it have to provide the services the vessel now supplies?
Order Paper Questions


Bill Rompkey: 1. It is intended to retain the oceanographic vessel, William J. Stewart in commission for the next five years.
2. Consideration is now being given to the form of replacement for this vessel. Details have not yet been finalized, however it is currently planned that the design phase for the replacement of this vessel will take place during the 1973/74 fiscal year, and when all considerations have been fully weighed, the final form that the replacement will take will be established.


AVIATION SECURITY PROGRAM
Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): What measures are being taken by the government to forestall attempts to highjack aircraft within Canada?
Hon. jean Marchand (Minister of Transport): A detailed response to this question cannot be given without jeopardizing the effectiveness of the aviation security program. The Ministry is working very closely with the aviation industry and all those agencies concerned with air safety. Procedures and techniques being utilized range from fencing and metal detecting devices to personal searches of passengers and baggage.


CANADIAN MERCHANT MARINE
Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to the establishment of a Canadian Merchant Marine?
Hon. jean Marchand (Minister of Transport): A Canadian Merchant Marine presently exists, with the main component being the substantial fleet of specialized bulk carriers engaged in the coasting trade and the Canada-U.S.A. international trades. The question of altering the policy of the federal government to induce more participation by Canadian-flag ships in ocean-going operations is under almost constant appraisal, but there are no plans to create a fleet of such ships at this time.


DEFENCE-MOTOR VEHICLES, BORDEN AND PETAWAWA
Mr. Cossitt: How many jeeps owned by the government were located at, or attached to (a) CFB Camp Borden (b) CFB Petawawa, at the end of fiscal years 1971,1972 and at January 25,1973?


James Armstrong Richardson: Approximately 25,000 motor vehicles of all types are operated by the Department. Distribution records are maintained on computer files which are updated every two weeks, and it is therefore exceedingly difficult to determine numbers assigned to any one unit "in arrears" without a manual review of unit records. Neither the personnel nor the funds are available to carry out such a search. As of January 25, 1973 there were (a) 119 jeeps at CFB Borden; and (b) 202 at CFB Petawawa.

Order Paper Questions FRASER RIVER HARBOUR COMMISSION
February 21, 1973


Mr. Reynolds: Has the Fraser River Harbour Commission published a detailed financial statement in the last two years and, if not, on what date will a detailed financial statement for the last two years be made available?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: The Fraser River Harbour Commission publishes detailed financial statements annually which can be obtained direct from the Harbour Commission's office in New Westminster, B.C.


ALL-WEATHER HIGHWAY-MACKENZIE VALLEY
Miss MacDonald (Kingston and The Islands): 1.	With reference to the cost estimate made by the Prime Minister on April 28, 1972, about the all-weather highway along the Mackenzie Valley (a) what is the estimated total cost of this highway (b) how much of this total has been spent so far (c) how many new miles of road were built for this amount (d) what is the proposed and actual cost per mile to build this highway (e) what is the projected cost for road maintenance during and after construction (f) how many new jobs has this project created to date, and how long did they last (g) how many total new jobs will be created, and for how long (h) when construction is completed, how many persons will be employed along the highway (i) how many of the current new jobs are filled by native people and what is the breakdown of various job classifications?
2.	Is work presently suspended and, if so, who is paying the labourers who are kept on?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. (a) The current estimated total cost of the Highway (Fort Simpson to Inuvik) is $130 million, (b) Approximately $9 million to year end. (c) There are no miles of Highway fully completed. The present status of construction is: Section A (Fort Simpson to Camsell Bend) and Section E (Inuvik to Arctic Red River) are under construction now. Section B (Mile 346550) and Section C (Mile 550-725) are undergoing pre-engineering and design. Section D (Mile 725-891) is undergoing limited pre-engineering activity at this time. Design will begin in the Fall of 1973. (d) The estimated cost per mile of construction is as little as $60,000 or as much as $200,000- depending on conditions, (e) During construction, maintenance costs form part of the construction costs. After construction is completed, maintenance costs are estimated at approximately $3,000 per mile, (f) Since the beginning of the project 284 new jobs have been created. Because of the nature of the work involved we cannot say how long each job has lasted. There are at present 180 jobs on the project, (g) The schedule of construction is not yet firm. See answer to part (f). (h) Approximately 150 to 200 persons, (i) 108 of the 180 current new jobs are filled by native people. The breakdown is: heavy equipment operators, mechanics, draughtsmen, labourers, attendants, chainmen, kitchen helpers, duty drivers, storemen, clerks, cooks, instrument technicians, resident engineers, construction engineers, maintenance personnel.
2. No.


SEARCH AND RESCUE-AIRCRAFT BASED AT TRENTON
Mr. Lawrence: What was the normal complement of aircraft based at Trenton, Ontario during the summer period of 1972 for search and rescue purposes and what was the aircraft (a) type (b) size (c) number of engines (d) range and payload capacity?


James Armstrong Richardson: Two (a) CC138 Twin Otter aircraft with (b) a wing span of 65 feet and an overall length of 51 feet 9 inches; (c) two PT6A-27 engines; (d) 900 miles, 5000 pounds. Search and Rescue is the primary role of these two aircraft, but they are supplemented, when necessary, by a wide variety of military aircraft from the Regular and Reserve Forces, e.g., Hercules aircraft, Voyageur Helicopters, as well as by civil pilots and public-spirited citizens who act as observers.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Matte: 1.	Are Western wheat producers bound to inform the Canadian Wheat Board of the quantities of grain used for personal consumption?
2.	Are such quantities deducted from their sale quotas? [Translation]


Otto Emil Lang: 1. No.
2. No.


DEFENCE-SUMMER RESERVE TRAINING
Mr. Marshall: 1.	Under the summer reserve training program what is the allocation by province of male and female student vacancies?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to restrict applicants to those living only in localities where armouries are located as was the practice last year?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1.	There is no distinctipn made between male and female applicants. Vacancies are filled on a "first come" basis by students referred to the local Reserve unit by the Department of Manpower. All applicants must meet the basic enrolment standards for the reserves. The allocation by region is: Pacific (British Columbia), 750; Prairie (Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Northwestern Ontario), 1,200; Central (Ontario less Northwestern Ontario), 2,025; Eastern (Quebec), 2,250; Atlantic (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland), 1,275. This regional allocation has been determined by the estimated levels of regional student unemployment and the ability of the Reserves to conduct this training.
2. The training offered is of practical necessity limited to localities which have active Reserve units and suitable accommodation in which to conduct the training. There is no restriction on the domicile of any applicant other than that for most of the training period of eight weeks he is expected to provide his own accommodation and food. If rations and quarters were made available (and this is impractical in most localities) the overhead costs would be such as to substantially reduce the numbers who could be enrolled within funds available.
February 21, 1973



Mr. Marshall: 1.	Under the summer cadet program what is the total number of cadets who will avail themselves of this program besides the announced additional 4,000?
2.	What is the allocation by province of the vacancies?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1 and 2. Under the summer cadet training program there are vacancies for 20,003 allocated as follows: Newfoundland, 1,313; Nova Scotia 1,270; Prince Edward Island, 120; New Brunswick, 967; Quebec, 5,633; Ontario, 5,345; Manitoba, 1,030; Saskatchewan, 1,002; Alberta, 1,517; British Columbia, 1,566; Territories, 240.


COASTAL TRADING REGULATIONS
Mr. Forrestall: Is it the intention of the government to institute or extend coastal trading regulations, similar to the Jones Act in the United States, to include the east and west coasts of Canada and, if so, will they be extended to include all the Arctic sector and Arctic Islands?


Jean Marchand: The government is presently considering a new policy for the Canadian coasting trade largely on the basis of the Darling Report. This Report recommended reserving all coasting trade activities in Canada to Canadian-flag vessels and extending the laws to the Arctic waters and Continental Shelf of Canada. It was, however, the recommendation of Mr. Darling that where no Canadian vessel was available or adequate to fulfil the requirements of the trade permits would be granted to foreign vessels following payment of duties on the basis of the value of the ship and its period of activity in the coasting trade. The Jones Act in the United States does not allow foreign vessels to engage in the coasting trade. Perhaps it might be noted that the United States has virtually no coasting activity.


MAN AND RESOURCES PROGRAM-YUKON AND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
Mr. Nielsen: 1.	What is the total cost to date to the government for the provision of professional services for implementation of the "Man and Resources Program" in the Yukon and Northwest Territories?
2.	What person, firm or corporation performed the services and of what did such services consist?
3.	Were public tenders called for such services and, if not, for what reason?
4.	Will any further costs be incurred by the government in connection with this program and, if so, what costs for what services?
5.	Were any of the elected representatives of the Councils of either the Yukon or the Northwest Territories involved in the planning of the program or in the activities leading to the publication of any report?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. $30,000.
2. Gemini North provided professional services to implement the "Man and Resources" program in the North by designing the format, by providing an oppor-
Order Paper Questions
tunity for public participation to identify and describe local resource use problems, issues and conflicts, by compiling a list of potential delegates for the Montebello Workshop, and by preparing brief notes for the use of the eight delegates selected to attend the Workshop from the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
3.	No. The work was specialized, the lead time was extremely short and consequently only two firms were contacted about the undertaking. One firm was unable to take on the work and, therefore, Gemini North was selected because the firm is resident in the North, possesses particular expertise in the field, and was scheduled to visit several communities during the summer in connection with another project.
4.	Yes. The program for 1973 has not been fully developed yet but it is expected that approximately $30,000 will be spent in support of individuals, groups, organizations, associations, etc., wishing to address themselves to one of the 12 resource issues and requiring funds for travel, research, etc.
5.	There were no elected representatives of either Territorial government involved in the planning of the program but some Council members did take part in activities at the local citizen participation level.


VANCOUVER WEATHER OFFICE
Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Will the Vancouver weather office be moved to a new environment on the North Shore of Vancouver?
2.	Have the employees of the present weather station been advised that they will be or could be moved and, if so, on what date?
3.	What percentage of employees live in Richmond and Delta and, if it is over 50 per cent, does the Minister consider such a move feasible?
4.	Has the government any plans to compensate employees who must move to be within a reasonable travel distance to work?
5.	Is there any scientific reason for this move?
6.	Were other locations looked into besides the North Shore?
7.	Was any consideration given to remodelling the present office?


Bill Rompkey: 1. Yes; except for the Aviation Weather Briefing Office which will remain at the airport.
2.	Yes; on January 26, 1973.
3.	Forty-five per cent.
4.	No.
5.	Yes; co-location of the Atmospheric Environment Service with the Environmental Protection Service will facilitate the execution of programs.
6.	Yes; False Creek, Steveston and UBC Endowment Lands.
7.	No; the office space will be required by the Ministry of Transport.
1504

Order Paper Questions COMPENSATION FOR CROP LOSSES


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	What criteria were used to determine the regions where farmers would benefit from a $400 compensation for crop losses in 1972?
2.	What were the names of the persons or agencies who were responsible for outlining the areas?


Léopold Corriveau: 1. Regions designated in Ontario and Quebec were those where 1972 crops were 60 per cent or less of normal due to adverse weather.
2. The areas were outlined jointly by the agricultural representatives and agronomes of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, respectively, and officials of Agriculture Canada.


SPECIAL LOAN PROGRAM FOR VARIOUS CATEGORIES OF INVESTMENT PROJECTS
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	As a result of the joint statement of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration on December 6, 1972, concerning a special loan program offered to the provinces and municipalities for various categories of investment projects (a) to date, how many provinces took advantage of the policy (b) which ones?
2.	(a) How many Quebec municipalities made applications to date, under the program (b) how many millions did the government invest to date in this program?


John Napier Turner: 1. (a) and (b)
All provinces have indicated their general agreement with the program and, to date, exchanges of official Letters of Agreement have been completed with six provinces. These are Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Quebec and British Columbia. Replies from other provinces are expected any day.
2. (a) and (b) Municipalities apply through the provincial government and, so far, no applications have been submitted by the Government of Quebec on behalf of its municipalities.


CANADIAN TROOPS IN VIET NAM
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	Is the sending of Canadian troops to Viet Nam entirely paid by Canada?
2.	What are the estimated expenditures for this purpose? [Translation]


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. No, see statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence at page 761 of Hansard dated 29 January, 1973 in regard to Article 14 of the governing protocol ratified in Paris 27 January, 1973.
2. The International Commission has not yet submitted its budget for approval. Accordingly, the contribution by Canada as a member of the Commission for Supervision is not known at this time. Based on the agreed participation by Canada for the initial 60 day period, a rough estimate of the related military costs to be incurred for those 60 days would be in the neighbourhood of $500,000,

exclusive of normal pay and benefits. The direct recoverable portion of these costs cannot be fully assessed yet.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL SHARED-COST PROGRAM
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What provinces have "opted out" of federal-provincial shared-cost program since April, 1967?
2.	What were the names of the programs?
3.	What tax points were given, if any, in lieu of participation?
4.	What were the principles and the mathematical formula used in arriving at the tax points, and were these principles the same in each case for each province?


John Napier Turner: 1. None.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	Not applicable.


GULF SHORE HIGHWAY, P.E.I. NATIONAL PARK
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	On what date was construction commenced for the Gulf Shore Highway in the Prince Edward Island National Park?
2.	What was the total cost?
3.	Has it been definitely decided not to construct a highway bridge across Rustico Bay and, if so, for what reasons was the decision reached?
4.	What is the total length of the detour around Rustico Bay from one portion of the Gulf Shore Highway to the other?
5.	Has the Province of Prince Edward Island requested assistance in constructing highways for this detour of the same quality and specifications as those prevailing in the Gulf Shore Highway and, if so (a) on what date (b) what was the response of the government?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. See answer to Question 2,156 tabled in the House of Commons on December 22, 1971.
2.	See answer to Question 2,156 tabled in the House of Commons on December 22, 1971.
3.	The Department has definitely decided not to construct a bridge across Rustico Bay. See answer to Question 2,156 tabled in the House of Commons on December 22, 1971.
4.	The detour around Rustico Bay is in fact a provincial highway network connecting to the Gulf Shore Road at North Rustico (via route 6) and Brackley Beach (via route 15). The total distance is 10.5 miles.
5.	No.


QUEBEC-EXPENSES INCURRED FROM USE OF ARMED FORCES IN OCTOBER, 1970
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	Did the government bill the Quebec Government for expenses incurred from the use of the Armed Forces in October 1970 and, if so, what was the amount claimed?
2.	What was the amount paid to date by the Quebec Government?
February 21, 1973


James Armstrong Richardson: 1 and 2. No, see House of Commons Debates dated 9 September, 1971, page 7659.


ESCALATION OF RETIRED BANK EMPLOYEES' PENSIONS
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): Has the Minister of Finance discussed with the chartered banks the need for the pensions paid to their retired employees to be escalated annually by an amount at least equal to the rise in the cost of living and, if so (a) what has been the response (b) which of the chartered banks have indicated to the Minister of Finance their readiness to adopt such a program?


Mr. Charles Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows. It is believed that, while their pension plans do not contain escalation provisions tied to changes in the cost of living index, the banks have for some time been making special payments each year to employees who have been retired for a number of years or to their survivors.


TERMS OF $13 MILLION LOAN TO TANZANIA
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): Will the Secretary of State advise what the terms were of the $13 million loan granted to Tanzania for the construction of a new hydro electric plant (a) for what term was the loan extended (b) at what rate of interest?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The terms and conditions of the loan to Tanzania include the following: (a) repayment over 50 years with a grace period covering the first ten years; (b) zero percent interest.


CONSTITUENCY OF BEAUCE-LIP PROJECTS
Mr. Laprise: As of January 31, 1973 (a) how many LIP projects were received by the Department of Manpower and Immigration for the constituency of Abitibi (b) what was the total amount involved (c) how many projects were approved (d) what was the amount involved?


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows: (a) Applications received as at January 31, 1973: 110; (b) $4,133,847; (c) Approved Projects as at January 31, 1973: 17; (d) $544,071.


QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. Broadbent: 1.	What were the names of the corporations which received cash grants under the Defence Industrial Research Program (DIR), in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72,1972-73 to date, and, in each case, what were the amounts of money committed and paid?
2.	What are the objectives of the program?
Order Paper Questions
3.	Has the department conducted any evaluative study of the program and, if so, what was the debate of the latest report?
Return tabled.


DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES-CIVILIAN AND DEFENCE CONTRACTS
Mr. Grier: What was the total value of civilian and defence contracts awarded by the Department of Supply and Services for goods and services in each of the fiscal years 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73, to date, to the following corporations: Atlantic Sugar Refineries; Abitibi Paper Co. Ltd., Alcan Aluminum Ltd.; Algoma Steel Corporation Ltd.; Bethlehem Copper Co. Ltd.; BP Oil and Gas Ltd.; Bell Canada; Canadian Pacific Railway Co.; Canadian Ingersoll-Rand Co. Ltd.; Consolidated Bathurst Ltd.; Canadian Johns-Manville Co.; Chemcell Ltd.; Chrysler Corp.; Canadian International Paper; Canadian Javelin; Canada Packers Ltd.; Dominion Foundries and Steel; DuPont of Canada Ltd.; Domtar Ltd.; Eddy Match Co. Ltd.; Eddy Paper Co. Ltd.; Ford Motor Co.; Foster Advertising; General Motors Corp.; Gordon Hill Advertising; Hudsons' Bay Co.; Husky Oil Ltd.; Imperial Oil Ltd.; IBM Canada Ltd.; International Nickel Co. (Canada) Ltd.; Kates, Peat, Marwick Co.; McFarland Construction; Micro-Max Products Ltd.; McCain Foods Ltd.; MacMillan Bloedel Ltd.; Massey-Ferguson Ltd.; McLaren Advertising; National Sea Products Ltd.; Peat, Marwick, Mitchell Co.; Procter and Gamble Co. of Canada Ltd.; Petrofina Canada Ltd.; Steel Co. of Canada Ltd.; Shell Canada Ltd.; Simpson's Ltd.; Sperry Rand Canada Ltd.; Swift Canada Co. Ltd.; Texaco Co. Ltd.; Union Carbide of Canada Ltd.; Westing-house Canada Ltd.; Canadian Admiral Corp.; Imperial Furniture Manufacturing Co. Ltd.; Pacific Petroleum Ltd.; Standard Aero Engine Ltd.; Canadian Motorola Electronics Co.; John Deere Ltd.; Dyer & Miller Bros. Ltd.; Honeywell Ltd.; International Harvester Co. of Canada Ltd.; Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing of Canada Ltd.; Molson Industries Ltd.; Xerox of Canada Ltd.; Aircraft Appliances & Equipment Ltd.; Computing Devices of Canada; General Foods Ltd.; North American Rockwell of Canada Ltd.; Sparton of Canada Ltd.; Bristol Aerospace Ltd., Dominion Road Machinery Co. Ltd.; International Harvester Co. of Canada Ltd.; Orenda Ltd.; Litton System (Canada) Ltd.; Uniroyal Ltd.; Acme Seeley Ltd.; American Motors (Canada) Ltd.; Burrowes Manufacturing Ltd.; Canadian General Electric Co. Ltd.; Gulf Oil Canada Ltd.; Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Ltd.; Kodak Canada Ltd.; RCA Ltd.; Rolland Paper Co. Ltd.; Spartan Aero Ltd.; Sunar Industries Ltd.; Acres Consulting Services Ltd.; Boeing of Canada Ltd.; Canadair Ltd.; Canadian Industries Ltd.; Canadian Marconi Co.; DeHavilland Aircraft of Canada Ltd.; Digital Equipment of Canada Ltd.; Dominion Textile Ltd.; Irving Oil Co. Ltd.; United Aircraft; Microsystems International Ltd.; Northern Electric Ltd.?
Return tabled.


PROSPECTORS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Mr. Firth: 1.	What were the names of recipients benefitting from the Prospectors Assistance Program (PAP), in each fiscal year 1968-69 to 1972-73 to date, and what were the amounts of money involved in each case?
2.	What are the objectives of the above program?
3.	Has the department conducted any evaluative study of the Program and, if so, what was the date of the lastest report?
Return tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?

February 21, 1973
Motions for Papers


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not discount the answer given to my starred question No. 811 by the parliamentary secretary, but I understood that the Minister of Finance had an answer to give. I wonder whether he has anything to supplement what was said earlier by the parliamentary secretary?


John Napier Turner: I never disagree with a member of the family, Mr. Speaker.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 81 and 132 are acceptable to the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that notices of motions Nos. 81 and 132 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
IMPACT OF PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE ON NORTHERN ECOLOGY Motion No. 81-Mr. Harding:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all reports prepared within or for the federal government concerning the impact of the proposed Mackenzie Valley pipeline on northern ecology.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 132-Mr. Danforth:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the ARDA study of sugar beet growing in Ontario and Quebec by R. Steven Rodd, submitted in 1967, under federal project No. 15036.
Motion agreed to.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 40 and 129 are acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that motions Nos. 40 and 129 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF FISH PROCESSING PLANT ALONG NORTHERN COAST OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 40-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, memoranda, studies, reports and other documents exchanged between any agency, branch or department of the government and any other agency, branch or department of the government since January I, 1969 relating to the potential development of a fish processing plant along the northern coast of British Columbia involving the Pacific North Coast Native Co-operative.
Motion agreed to.
INFORMATION REFERRED TO IN 1971-72 ANNUAL REPORT OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT Motion No. 129-Mr. Harding:
That an Order of the House do issue for all material and information supplied by the pipeline industry and associated trade

unions as referred to at page 61 of the 1971-1972 Annual Report of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Motion agreed to.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 39 and 75 are acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents and 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 these motions be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF FISH PROCESSING PLANT, BRITISH COLUMBIA
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 39-Mr. Howard:
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, telegrams or other documents exchanged between the government or any agency, branch or department thereof and the Government of the province of British Columbia since January 1, 1969 relating to the potential development of a fish processing plant along the northern coast of British Columbia involving the Pacific North Coast Native Co-operative.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 75-Mr. Schellenberger:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence, letters, telegrams or other documents between the government and the government of Alberta regarding possible relocation of track situated within municipalities within the province.
Motion agreed to.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 42, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 76, 78, 79 and 120?


CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO 1976 OLYMPICS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 42-Mr. Marshall:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence, telegrams, memoranda, and other documents among the Mayor of Montreal, the Premier of Quebec, and the government of Canada involved in the 1976 Olympics proposed for the city of Montreal.
John Mercer Reid: Mr.Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 42 is acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents. It is my wish to table these documents forthwith. In addition to the correspondence requested in the motion I am also tabling a "Finacial Analysis-1976
February 21, 1973

Olympics Games-Montreal", prepared by the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Bureau of Management Consultants, which is germane to the correspondence and will no doubt be useful at this time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 47-Mr. Benjamin:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the report of Mr. Justice Tritschler on the enquiry into the construction of the Great Slave Lake Railway.
Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, sitting at Ottawa, Thursday, December 11, 1969, was pleased to recommend that the Minister of Transport establish a one-man inquiry to consider the merits of the claim submitted by the Great Slave Railway contractors, that the person nominated to conduct the inquiry be acceptable to both contractors and Canadian National Railways, and should report to the minister in confidence so as not to-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think it is a well known practice that parliamentary secretaries or ministers replying to notices of motions for the production of papers should indicate whether it is proposed to table the documents without a lengthy explanation. It was the practice for many years that no explanation at all was allowed, but by consent of members over the years it was agreed that perhaps it made more sense if a one-line explanation was made to indicate why the motion was being refused. But certainly there is no provision in these circumstances for parliamentary secretaries or members replying on behalf of ministers to make a lengthy statement. I think the hon. member's statement is irregular.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will try to be brief, but it is very important that it be-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, it is important that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, Please. Would the hon. member resume his seat. It should be brought to the attention of parliamentary secretaries that there are enough people working on behalf of the government and parliamentary secretaries that they should not propose for reading to the House statements of the kind the parliamentary secretary is trying to impart to us at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, the government is refusing, if that is the case.


Mr. Benjamin:: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, since the judge appointed was not acceptable to both sides, and since there is no further point in the documents being confidential, I would move that the question be put.
Motions for Papers Mr. MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


APPLICATION OF EFFLUENT REGULATIONS TO MACMILLAN BLOEDEL LIMITED, NANAIMO, B.C.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 48-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of ali correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Department of the Environment or any agency or branch thereof and MacMillan Bloedel Limited, Port Alberni, British Columbia, since January 1, 1972, relating to the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations and the application thereof to the above-mentioned company.
Mr. john M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, the information received by the government in this case is regarded as confidential and the government, therefore, refuses the motion on that ground.
Mr. Howard:: Mr. Speaker, is this motion No. 48?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, 48.


Frank Howard: The Fisheries Act was amended some four or five years ago and this is just a lot of nonsense that we are hearing now.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The remarks from the Chair applying to parliamentary secretaries also apply to the hon. member for Skeena and other hon. members. I have to ask members whether they wish to have the question put or the motion transferred for debate.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, perhaps I might be able to expedite proceedings in respect of motions Nos. 49 to 73 inclusive in the name of the hon. member for Skeena. The reason that the government is rejecting these motions is the same as that given for motion No. 48. Perhaps Your Honour might wish to deal with these in a group.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, if I may rise on the point of order I point out that the parliamentary secretary is accurate in his statement that each one of these motions asks for the same information in respect of different companies in the pulp and paper industry in British Columbia which have been exempted by the government from the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member would agree that we might save time if we could accept the request of the government with regard to motions 49 to 73 standing in the name of the hon. member for Skeena. The request of the government, I gather, is that they be transferred for debate.

February 21, 1973
Motions for Papers


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I say that this is not an acceptable course of action to me. Acceptance of the proposal of the government that these motions be transferred for debate will mean that any opportunity to get at the truth will be effectively denied because the government will just sweep these motions under the rug.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If it is the wish of the House we will call each motion.



[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 49-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Department of the Environment or any agency or branch thereof and MacMillan Bloedel Limited, Nanaimo, British Columbia, since January 1, 1972, relating to the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations and the application thereof to the above-mentioned company.
John Mercer Reid: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


APPLICATION OF EFFLUENT REGULATIONS TO NORTHWOOD PULP LIMITED
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 50-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Department of the Environment or any agency or branch thereof and Northwood Pulp Limited, Prince George, British Columbia, since January 1, 1972, relating to the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations and the application thereof to the above-mentioned company.
John Mercer Reid: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, it is ridiculous for Your Honour to have to go through these motions one by one. I had hoped we would get some sensible response from the government and that at least one of the motions might be acceptable, but it appears that the government wants to deny this information to the general public.


Mr. Speaker:: Notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 49 to 73 inclusive are transferred for debate.


APPLICATION OF EFFLUENT REGULATIONS TO PRINCE GEORGE PULP AND PAPER LIMITED
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 51-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Department of the Environment or any agency or branch thereof and Prince George Pulp and Paper Limited, P.O. Box 6000, Prince George, British Columbia, since January 1, 1972, relating to the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations and the application thereof to the above-mentioned company.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 52-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Department of the Environment or any agency or branch thereof and Rayonier Canada Limited, Woodfibre, British Columbia, since January 1, 1972, relating to the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations and the application thereof to the above-mentioned company.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 53-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Department of the Environment or any agency or branch thereof and Rayonier Canada Limited, Port Alice, British Columbia, since January 1, 1972, relating to the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations and the application thereof to the above-mentioned company.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 54-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Department of the Environment or any agency or branch thereof and Scott Paper Limited, P.O. Box 760, New Westminster, British Columbia, since January 1, 1972, relating to the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations and the application thereof to the above-mentioned company.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 55-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Department of the Environment or any agency or branch thereof and Tahsis Company Limited, Gold River, British Columbia, since January 1, 1972, relating to the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations and the application thereof to the above-mentioned company.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 56-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Department of the Environment or any agency or branch thereof and Weyerhaeuser Canada Ltd., P.O. Box 800, Kamloops, British Columbia, since January 1, 1972, relating to the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations and the application thereof to the above-mentioned company.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 57-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Department of the Environment or any agency or branch thereof and Cariboo Pulp and Paper Company, Quesnel, British Columbia (Start-up: end of 1972), since January 1, 1972, relating to the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations and the application thereof to the above-mentioned company.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 58-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Department of the Environment or any agency or branch thereof and British Columbia Forest Products Ltd., Mackenzie, British Columbia (under construction), since January 1, 1972, relating to the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations and the application thereof to the above-mentioned company.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 59-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Department of the Environment or any agency or branch thereof and Belkin Paperboard Limited, Burnaby, British Columbia, since January 1, 1972, relating to the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations and the application thereof to the above-mentioned company.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 60-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Department of the Environment or any agency or branch thereof and British Columbia Forest Products Limited, Crofton, British Columbia, since January 1, 1972, relating to the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations and the application thereof to the above-mentioned company.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 61-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Department of the Environment or any agency or branch thereof and Canadian Forest Products Limited, New Westminster, British Columbia, since January 1, 1972, relating to the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations and the application thereof to the above-mentioned company.
Transferred for debate.
Motions for Papers

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 62-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Department of the Environment or any agency or branch thereof and Canadian Forest Products Limited, Port Mellon, British Columbia, since January 1,1972, relating to the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations and the application thereof to the above-mentioned company.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 63-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Department of the Environment or any agency or branch thereof and Columbia Cellulose Company, Limited, P.O. Box 1000, Castlegar, British Columbia, since January 1, 1972, relating to the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations and the application thereof to the abovementioned company.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 64-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Department of the Environment or any agency or branch thereof and Columbia Cellulose Company, Limited, Prince Rupert, British Columbia (kraft), since January 1, 1972, relating to the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations and the application thereof to the abovementioned company.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 65-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Department of the Environment or any agency or branch thereof and Columbia Cellulose Company, Limited, Prince Rupert, British Columbia (sulphite), since January 1,1972, relating to the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations and the application thereof to the abovementioned company.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 66-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Department of the Environment or any agency or branch thereof and Crestbrook Forest Industries Ltd., Skookumchuck,
[Stage Direction]
Motions for Papers
British Columbia, since January 1, 1972, relating to the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations and the application thereof to the above-mentioned company.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 67-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Department of the Environment or any agency or branch thereof and Crown Zellerbach Canada Limited, Campbell River, British Columbia, since January 1, 1972, relating to the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations and the application thereof to the above-mentioned company.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 68-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Department of the Environment or any agency or branch thereof and Crown Zellerbach Canada Limited, Ocean Falls, British Columbia, since January 1,1972, relating to the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations and the application thereof to the above-mentioned company.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 69-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Department of the Environment or any agency or branch thereof and Eurocan Pulp and Paper Co. Ltd., Kitimat, British Columbia, since January 1, 1972, relating to the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations and the application thereof to the above-mentioned company.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 70-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Department of the Environment or any agency or branch thereof and Finlay Forest Industries Ltd., Mackenzie, British Columbia, since January 1, 1972, relating to the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations and the application thereof to the above-mentioned company.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 71-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Department of the Environment or any agency or branch

thereof and Intercontinental Pulp Company Ltd., P.O. Box 600, Prince George, British Columbia, since January 1,1972, relating to the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations and the application thereof to the above-mentioned company.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 72-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Department of the Environment or any agency or branch thereof and MacMillan Bloedel Limited, 1010 Derwent Wau, Anna-cis Island, British Columbia, since January 1, 1972, relating to the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations and the application thereof to the above-mentioned company.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 73-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Department of the Environment or any agency or branch thereof and MacMillan Bloedel Limited, Powell River, British Columbia, since January 1, 1972, relating to the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations and the application thereof to the above-mentioned company.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 76-Mr. Latulippe:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the agreement and of all documents concerning the offer of a guaranteed loan from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to Commonwealth Holiday Inns Ltd., of London, Ontario, for the construction of a hotel in Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, the information concerning the acceptation of a loan guarantee by this firm is of a public nature. However, all specific documents exchanged between the department and the corporation concerning its application must be considered as being of a business and confidential nature. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like this question to be transferred for debate at a later date.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


GUARANTEED LOAN BY DREE TO PARC SAMUEL HOLLAND HOTEL, QUEBEC
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 78-Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the signed agreement and all other documents relating to the offer of a
February 21, 1973
[Stage Direction]
guaranteed loan made by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to the Parc Samuel Holland Hotel of Quebec.
Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, the information concerning the acceptance of a loan guarantee by this corporation is of a public nature. However, all specific documents exchanged between the department and the corporation regarding its application must be considered as being of a business and confidential nature. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I would like this question to be transferred for debate at a later date.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO GRANT BY DREE TO &quot;LE SOLEIL&quot;
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 79-Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the contract and all documents relating to a grant by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to the newspaper Le Soleil of Quebec.
Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I have to say it again, but I was just saying that information concerning the acceptance of a grant by this company is a matter of public knowledge. I hope it will be understood that all specific documents exchanged between the department and the corporation concerning its application must be considered as being of a business and confidential nature. I am sorry to have to repeat it, but I would again ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


André-Gilles Fortin: Everything which is of public interest should be known to the public, Mr. Speaker. Therefore I ask that the motion be transferred for debate at a later date.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.

CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO 1976 OLYMPIAD Motion No. 120-Mr. Rose:
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 municipal authorities in Montreal and the government in relation to the 1976 Olympiad.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the documents I tabled earlier in response to notice of motion No. 42 are exactly the same as would be tabled in response to notice of motion No. 120 in the name of the hon. member for Fraser Valley West. If the hon. member will withdraw his motion I am prepared to send him a copy of this return at once.


Mr. Rose:: Agreed.


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. I should like to ask him whether he has any explanation of why this year in his budget presented last Monday night he reduced his goal for the creation of jobs to 300,000 new jobs from the 330,000 jobs he said his budget of May 8 last would be created?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would like to check the exact phraseology in the budget of May 8, but the target I gave the House on the number of new jobs for the calendar year 1973 will be a realistic figure, I expect.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether henceforth when he gives the House figures he will tell us whether or not they are to be taken as being realistic?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister a supplementary question. Has he any explanation, in view of the existing level of unemployment, of why the budget he presented on Monday night last is less expansionary than the budget of May 8, 1972, particularly when one considers that nearly $900 million of the expenditures included in the budget on Monday night relates to money actually expended in connection with the unemployment insurance fund in the current year and has nothing to do with next year?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is confusing the accounting figures with the cash requirements, and he is doing that deliberately, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: I say to him that the deficit is measured in terms of the total of budgetary and non-budgetary items, which is set at $2 billion, the same stimulus as provided in the May 8 budget, which we believe to be the right stimulus in view of the fact we are higher up the scale of growth in the economy.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the fact that nearly $900 million of these cash requirements relates to money expended in the current year rather than the money to be expended next year, I should like to ask the minister whether he will deny that on a national accounts basis the deficit he proposed for the coming fiscal year is substan-
1512

Oral Questions
tially less than the deficit on a national accounts basis that he proposed in the budget of May 8? Can he deny that?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the proper figure to look at is the total cash requirements of the government and the pressure put on the financial markets, and that figure remains at $2 billion. The hon. gentleman referred to the unemployment insurance fund. He knows that in the year in which the moneys are advanced they are a non-budgetary item and are picked up in the following year as a budgetary expense, so the preamble to the first part of his earlier question is illusory.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would hope we would not become involved in a full-fledged budget debate during the question period in view of the fact that this is precisely what we will be dealing with later this afternoon. The hon. member for Don Valley has a supplementary.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege relating to the selective memory of the Leader of the Opposition. He quoted my budget speech as saying that I predicted an increase of 330,000 jobs. That is not what I said. I said:
We are expecting a large increase in employment and all signs to date this year give credence to this anticipation. In March this year there were 330,000 more Canadians working than one year ago.
I was comparing March 1972 figures with March 1971 figures. The hon. member has used these figures completely out of context.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The minister made the following statement outside the House very emphatically:
I was quite specific in the House of Commons tonight by saying that our total employment increase would exceed the 330,000 new jobs we provided for Canadians last year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Let us have a selective apology.


Mr. Crouse:: Your selective memory is failing you, John.


DEFICIT FORECAST IN BUDGET-AMOUNT OF PURCHASING POWER TO BE PUT INTO ECONOMY
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance and it is for clarification. Can he say, so that the House will not misunderstand him, whether it is absolutely true that in the calculation of the $2 billion deficit to which the minister refered in his budget it is the understanding, in the making of these calculations and in estimating the amount of employment that will be created, that there will be that amount of purchasing power put into the economy this year?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is-and I will try to be absolutely true-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That will be very difficult.


John Napier Turner: -that the excess of expenditures over revenues will require a cash injection of $2 billion.


James McPhail Gillies: Am I to understand then that the minister's position is that the transfer to the employment insurance fund has no bearing on the amount of purchasing power that will be generated this year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. The Chair will allow the minister to reply, but I am sure hon. members will agree that this is obviously debate.


John Napier Turner: That is not what I said.


ACTION TO AVOID POSSIBLE LAKEHEAD GRAIN HANDLERS STRIKE AND DISRUPTION OF SHIPMENT
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that negotiations for a new contract between the grain handlers and the elevator companies at the Lakehead have broken down, thus creating the possibility of a strike this spring which would disrupt the shipment of grain for which large sales have been made, has he or his department studied the situation to see what they can do to resolve the impasse?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Our department has been watching this situation and has been ready to offer mediation services. We are prepared to continue to offer these services in an endeavour to resolve this dispute.


David Orlikow: May I ask the minister whether the department has in fact moved to call the parties together to meet with officials of the department or the minister with a view tp studying the difficulties that still exist between the two parties?


John Carr Munro: Certainly we are prepared to consider that, Mr. Speaker.


POSSIBLE LAKEHEAD GRAIN HANDLERS STRIKE-CONTINGENCY PLANS FOR MOVEMENT
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Can he inform the House whether, in view of the potential difficulties in moving western grain through the Lakehead, he has any contingency plans in terms of the movement of grain through other ports?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the Lakehead is of such major importance in the movement of grain during the shipping season that no alternatives to the proper functioning of that port itself would be adequate.


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, returning to the all-important question to western producers, I should like to put a

further supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact there could be difficulties at the Lakehead in terms of grain movement, can the minister inform us now if there has been any move on the part of his department or other related departments to improve and to bring into condition the port of Churchill and other such ports of importance as Prince Rupert?
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Before pursuing this question, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Compton.


FINANCE
Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered on the situation at the port of Churchill. We are still studying the potential of that port, and as soon as we are ready to make a report I will make it in the House.
*
* *


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Has he succeeded in getting the unions representing 90,000 railway employees and the railways back together for conciliation talks following the breakdown of negotiations last Friday?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the hon. member that I sent a telegram to all the parties concerned asking them to come together in another effort to resolve this dispute. I indicated that the assistant deputy minister of my department would be available along with other officials to assist in mediation if they would come together. I have had replies now from both the CNR and CPR that they are agreeable to reconvening in this endeavour and I am awaiting a reply from the union concerned representing the employees.
While I am on my feet, I wonder if I might clarify an answer-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the minister wishes to refer to the question that is now before the House, he can of course give additional information but, as I have suggested before to ministers and to hon. members asking questions, it is a little difficult from the standpoint of orderliness to jump from one question to another. Perhaps I might recognize the minister in a moment when we have finished this subject.


James Aloysius McGrath: May I ask the Minister of Labour if, in order to avert a nationwide strike, he is prepared to intervene personally as Minister of Labour to get the two parties back together for conciliation talks?


John Carr Munro: That is always a possibility to ensure that this kind of dispute is resolved. We are hopeful it can be resolved at the bargaining table now without the necessity of going through all the conciliation procedures and boards that have not been too productive in the past. That is still our hope. I think that by making available to all parties concerned some of the most experienced mediators at the federal level, that will be the end result.


ABOLITION OF SALES TAX ON BUILDING MATERIALS
Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Finance.
In his budget speech, the minister stated that 300,000 new jobs will be created in Canada. Now, with a view to encouraging the creation of jobs, as an incentive in the field of housing construction and, at the same time, as a contribution to lowering the cost of living, could the hon. minister tell the House why removing the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials was not considered in the last budget?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I considered this possibility but since I had only a few options, I could not accept the hon. member's suggestion.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Finance.
In connection with the 300,000 jobs mentioned in his budget speech, is he in a position to forecast whether Quebec will have by 1974 the 100,000 jobs promised by premier Bourassa in 1970?


HOUSING
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact he did nothing about repealing or changing the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials and in view of the fact the price of houses in places like Toronto and Vancouver is out of reach of all but about 4 per cent of the people, can the minister inform the House what other policies he or the government have to put houses back in a price range where the average man and woman can afford them?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would think that when the House has a chance to deal with the amendments to the National Housing Act introduced by my colleague, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, that question will be satisfactorily answered.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in view of the answer given by the Minister of Finance, would he read those amendments to see what nonsense he is now peddling in the House?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre has a supplementary to a previous question we will now return to him.
25789-24J
Oral Questions GRAIN

February 21, 1973


EXPEDITING OF MOVEMENT TO LAKEHEAD TO FILL ALLEGED AVAILABLE ELEVATOR SPACE
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to return to the question put to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. As a precaution in case negotiations with the grain handlers or the railway employees do not succeed, can the minister tell the House if he is now taking or will immediately take action to increase grain movement to the Lakehead substantially in view of the fact that as of last week there was space there for some 60 million bushels?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has referred before to the question of space at the Lakehead or stocks there. His information is quite definitely in error. Total stocks at the Lakehead as of February 7 were 64 million bushels of grain, which means that there is only 24 million bushels of space available. From the point of view of seasonal working capacity the movement of grain to the Lakehead is going along at a very rapid rate in the ordinary way of seeing that the right volume and right kinds of grain are there by the time navigation opens. There is an adequate number of cars under load to the Lakehead at this time, a much larger number than in the last several years.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, would the minister be good enough to tell the House what happened to the other 40 million bushels of space that I am sure is still there?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the total licensed capacity at the Lakehead is 104 million bushels; the total seasonal working capacity is rated at 88 million bushels. The hon. member will appreciate that if the full licence capacity is occupied it is difficult to move grain through the facility at the most rapid rate. We are now setting records and we need to have these plants operating efficiently.


REQUEST BY HANDLING COMPANIES FOR REVIEW OF CHARGES
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: I have a supplementary question for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the negotiations now going on at the Lakehead, has the minister had any request to review grain handling charges from the grain handling companies and, if so, what has been his reply?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have had discussions on this subject. The question of rates, however, is in the hands, first of all, of the Canada Grains Commission and, second, is a matter of negotiation with the Canadian Wheat Board. I have referred the handling companies to these two bodies.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister and concerns a matter that was raised earlier today. In view of the fact that about half of the 1968 budget referred to the problem of regional development and the budget read by his colleague on Monday evening contained only half a dozen lines on that subject, can the Prime Minister indicate whether he has dropped this as one of the major policy aims of his government or whether he is satisfied that the problem has been eliminated?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member refers to the Speech from the Throne he will see that this is still one of the major aims of the government, and if he refers to the blue book which was tabled yesterday he will see from the estimates that expenditure in that area is going up considerably.


FINANCE
John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, may I then put a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the government made any estimate of what impact his budget will have on areas of high unemployment such as British Columbia, Quebec, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and other provinces? Will he be prepared, when he takes part in further debate and is answering questions, to give an indication to the House and the country of the goals of the government in high unemployment provinces, and can he also tell the House how many jobs will be created in those provinces?


An hon. Member:: Answer yes or no!


John Napier Turner: I will take that into consideration, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that we should try to go to another question. If the hon. member has a supplementary I will recognize him and the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby on a supplementary, I believe, on the same subject, and then I will go to the hon. member for Trinity.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, may I ask quite specifically if the government has made any estimate of how many jobs will be created in these very high unemployment areas? Has it or has it not?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to be precise in that sense. However, the stimulus of the budget by way of equalization payments in the amount of $200 million to the less-favoured provinces and the tax reductions concentrated in the lower income groups will obviously be of particular benefit and give extra stimulus to the economy. The revenues derived by
February 21, 1973

these provinces from provincial sales tax and other commodity taxes will undoubtedly have an impact on less-favoured areas, particularly the Atlantic provinces.


John Howard Lundrigan: Does that mean yes or no?


RELATIONSHIP OF BUDGET TARIFF REDUCTIONS TO NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNITED STATES
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Following the assurance of the Minister of Finance yesterday that there were no discussions with United States officials prior to the unilateral reduction of tariffs on Monday night, is the minister now in a position to advise the House of any quid pro quo which would justify this unilateral treatment in favour of the United States?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Finance covered that point. This is a temporary move; he emphasized that it would last for a year only. It does not in any way affect our negotiating position as we enter GATT.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In view of the fact that the only public reaction in the United States so far is a treasury department announcement that it intends to press an antidumping case against aluminium ingots, can the minister advise the House whether we can expect any further unilateral action on the American side and whether there is any deal, implicit or explicit, of which the Canadian budget proposals form a part?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, there is no deal. The active imagination of the hon. member is misplaced in this case. As regards the question of antidumping duties on aluminium, I believe the appraisement has been withheld, so we will have to wait several months to find out whether injury is found in the case of the aluminium industry or not.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, it is not an active imagination on my part. Is the minister aware that a Toronto columnist has today accused the government of conspiracy with the United States in order to postpone reopening of trade negotiations until later this year after the next federal election?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


HOUSING
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and relates to a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for York South. In view of the promised increase
Oral Questions
for pensioners and the tax reductions for low income people outlined in the budget on Monday night, would the minister assure the House that he will get in direct contact with his counterparts at the provincial level and urge them to take steps to ensure that these benefits are not eaten away by rent increases on the residences of pensioners and low income people?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think this problem is really with government run housing authorities. I think the hon. member can rely upon provincial housing agencies to take into account my remarks of yesterday and his remarks. Where there is a problem, I think it would be with those rental accommodations owned by the private sector. Whether provinces wish to impose rent control is really a matter for them to decide. The hon. member may wish to speak to three premiers with whom he is perhaps in closer touch than I.


John Edward Broadbent: While not sharing at all the assumption of the minister that there is no need to be concerned about publicly owned housing, I should like to ask him what concrete steps he is taking in terms of making sure in the private sector that the improvements that are promised to the low income people and pensioners in particular are not eaten up by rent increases in the private sector? What does he intend to do about that?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, rents in privately owned buildings are governed by the owners, and any control of those rents is a matter of whether or not there will be rent controls, which some provinces have already implemented.

[DOT] <1500)


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. Two and a half weeks ago I asked the minister whether the government had made a decision to exempt members of the Old Order Mennonites from compulsory participation in the Canada Pension Plan. At that time the minister indicated he would talk to his colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the minister consulted with his colleague and can he indicate to the House at this time whether the government will live up to that commitment?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, perhaps that question should have been directed to me. I had better take it as notice.

February 21, 1973
Oral Questions INCOME TAX


SUGGESTED ALLOWANCE AS DEDUCTION OF FEES PAID CONSULTANTS BY INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYERS
Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Revenue. On February 8 the Minister of Finance replied, after being asked whether he was prepared to permit individual Canadian taxpayers preparing their forms to deduct reasonable fees paid to tax consultants, that this would probably be dealt with in the budget. May 1 ask the Minister of National Revenue whether this was overlooked in the budget and whether individuals will now be permitted to make deductions for fees paid for advice on filling out tax forms?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Obviously, to my way of thinking, that question is not supplementary to the previous question. However, as the question has been asked the minister can reply briefly, and I will then recognize the hon. member for Richmond immediately afterwards.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, there is no answer.


HOUSING
[Stage Direction]
1976 OLYMPIC GAMES, MONTREAL-PARTICIPATION OF CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION-ALLOTMENT OF FUNDS FOR PROJECTS IN QUEBEC
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the hon. Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
Since the right hon. Prime Minister has recently declared to the House that with the help of the province of Quebec, the city of Montreal had only to use the services of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to finance the facilities for the Olympic Games, can the minister tell the House if a special budget has been or will be provided by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in connection with this new investment?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister made it clear that assistance would be provided through the regular budget of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Can the hon. minister assure this House that Quebec housing projects will not be deprived of funds, in view of the new investment made by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the Montreal Olympic Games?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the purport of the Prime Minister's remarks was that housing for the Olympics, if applied for, would be handled through the normal budget of Central Mortgage and Housing and we would want to
[Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton).l
make sure that it is housing which is suitable for long term use.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask another supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: X will first recognize the hon. member for Richmond and then the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us if the department has already received letters asking precisely that the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation provide this new investment for the Olympic Games in Montreal?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, we have not had a formal application for housing.


Gerald William Baldwin: How about an informal one?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In the light of the rather puzzling statements made yesterday by Ambassador Gauvin in connection with the difficulties and risks currently faced by the International Supervision Commission, could the minister give the House further information as to the progress made in the field of the co-operation from the belligerent forces?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you would not expect me to answer this question at great length on this occasion. May I make two comments. First, I am sure all of us are highly satisfied with the way in which Michel Gauvin is conducting himself in discharging his responsibilities as leader of the Canadian group. I think he has been very wise at this time in making clear that he expects better things from the operation of the International Commission of Control and Supervision than what has so far happened. I read the full account of what he had to say, and he said he is withholding judgment so far on whether this is a useful operation.


LAOS-REQUEST THAT HOUSE BE CONSULTED BEFORE DECISION ON POSSIBLE CANADIAN PARTICIPATION IN SUPERVISORY ROLE
Claude Wagner: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the reservations already expressed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs with regard to any Canadian role in Laos, can he now give the House his assurance that no
February 21, 1973

decision on Laos will be taken without consultation with the House?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not give that assurance, but I will certainly inform the House as soon as we have made a decision so that there can be discussion in this chamber.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Bill Kempling (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Inasmuch as a mechanism has been found to finance the Olympics, would the minister discuss with the Minister of National Revenue the extra tariff placed on the Astro turf at Ivor Wynn Stadium, Hamilton, with a view to cancelling the extra charge, as this stadium will be used to train some of our Olympic athletes?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, although that does not fall within my responsibilities, I am sure the Minister of National Revenue has heard the representation.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has his department reached any decision on increasing the subsidy on industrial milk, as requested by Canadian dairy farmers? If so, how will this increase be paid? Will it come from the federal treasury or from an increase in the consumer price of milk?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we have not reached a decision yet.


Jack Burnett Murta: Can the minister inform the House when a decision will be made on this matter?


Eugene Whelan: I hope soon, Mr. Speaker.


NATURAL RESOURCES
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Prime Minister. When appointing a new chairman for the government's task force on
Oral Questions
ocean science and technology, the Prime Minister stated that the federal government recognizes that Canada must ensure that it has the technical capacity and scientific understanding to respond effectively to the entire scope of this challenge. Would the Prime Minister indicate whether his government has any specific plans to assist in exploring, developing and managing our offshore resources, and also whether the government, in view of the oil shortage, is considering any increase in the assistance provided to domestic offshore oil drilling rigs and to ships built in Canadian shipyards so that we may utilize our entire offshore resources?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would have to inquire to see whether any of our assistance to the shipbuilding industry applies to the specific aspects that the hon. member is asking about. I do not know the answer offhand.


TRANSPORT
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the Ontario government's announcement that it will not participate in the second phase of Sudbury's relocation study until the federal government makes known its intention respecting rail relocation subsidies, is the minister prepared to do so now?


Jean Marchand: Would the hon. member repeat the last part of his question, please?


John R. Rodriguez: Is the minister prepared to announce the government's position, in view of the relocation study?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think I have said many times in the House that a bill will be introduced which will deal with the problem of relocation. A pilot study has been undertaken in Winnipeg. We have encountered this problem in many other places in Canada, mainly in Quebec City which is split in two by rail tracks. As soon as the bill is adopted by the House I hope we will be in a position to correct all these situations which the hon. member deplores and I deplore, too.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the minister responsible for immigration. As the number of appeals to the Immigration Appeal Board has reached alarming heights, at present numbering approximately 12,000, I wonder if the minister could advise the House what he is doing right now to expedite the hearing of appeals?

February 21, 1973
Oral Questions


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister oi Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as we indicated in the Speech from the Throne, we plan to present amendments to the Immigration Appeal Board Act to the House at an early opportunity. In the meantime, as announced by my predecessor, several successful endeavours have taken place in eliminating the preliminary build-up of additional appeals that might be coming forward to the board. I think we will have to restructure the board in some fashion before we can really beat this problem.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: As the chairman of the board indicated in 1968 that the board, as constituted, could not handle the massive amount of work it has to do and in view of the hundreds of appeals being filed daily or monthly, can the minister assure the House that he will be bringing forward legislation in the very near future which will at least increase the numbers on the board in order to expedite the hearing of these appeals? The fact that this has now been going on for three years is ridiculous.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, it is also ridiculous to take single estimates and put them through the mill three or four times simply for political purposes. If we can get the House moving faster on these things, we will be able to deal with real problems much more rapidly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I did not expect a hanky-panky answer from the minister. I asked him a straight question which does not call for political manoeuvring on his part. I asked the minister a very simple question with respect to a very important problem that is being faced by many Canadians, those who are involved with the appeal structure, and the least he can do is give me a straight answer in terms of how soon we can expect action.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I was giving the hon. member s very straight answer. It was not hanky-panky. It is a very serious consideration that I ask all members to give. We will get to that problem when we can proceed expeditiously with other matters ahead of it.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact there is an extreme shortage of graduate veterinarians in Canada, so much so that we have had to import veterinarians from Europe, I wish to ask the minister if it is the intention of his department or any other department of government to give a grant to the Ontario Veterinary College so they may enlarge their facilities to graduate more veterinarians from a long list of students who wish to study this profession?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member has said is true. There is a shortage of veterinarians in Canada. We actually have a team in Europe looking for veterinarians. We are studying the very issue about which he is talking. I hope to be able to give the hon. member a better answer very shortly.


SUBSIDY ON WHEAT USED DOMESTICALLY IN MILLS-POSSIBLE FURTHER MEASURES TO REDUCE FOOD PRICES
Mr. Norval Horner (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture or the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In light of the rising cost of food, is the government contemplating any further cheap food measures like the present one under which the federal treasury pays over one dollar for each bushel of wheat used in the mills for Canadian consumption?


An hon. Member:: Yes, meatballs and gravy.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there are one or two other payments or programs in existence which can be called consumer subsidies. Any further decisions along those lines will be announced.


Norval Alic Horner: I suggest that the minister in charge of the Wheat Board is playing politics with $60 million belonging to the Canadian wheat growers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Norval Alic Horner: I wish to ask the
minister how much that questionnaire cost and who is paying for it.


FISHERIES
Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the meeting-shy Minister of Fisheries. I wish to ask the minister whether he will agree to meet, within the next week, with representatives of the herring fishermen of British Columbia to discuss with them and work out an agreed arrangement on division of the catch as between the gillnet fishermen and the seiners so there will be a fair distribution of the quota he has allocated in the west coast herring fishery?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I have had several meetings with the fishermens' representatives on the west coast and the herring management committee we have there. We have set quotas. The matter now at issue is the price of the herring. That is a matter to
February 21, 1973

be settled between the union, the native brotherhood, the vessel owners and the processors, not the government.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: In view of the minister's statement that the issue is a matter of price, will he tell us why he has refused to meet with the fishermen, in view of having set quotas, in order that there may be a distribution of the catch between gillnet and seine fishermen, so that the matter of price can be properly settled between the fishermen and the buyers? That was my question and I would like an answer.


John (Jack) Davis: As the hon. member knows, Mr. Speaker, there are various groups of fishermen using different kinds of gear. The battle is between them as to what proportion of the herring they get. That is a battle I do not wish to enter. We have set over-all quotas. It is up to the industry to solve its difficulties in respect to price.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for St. John's West for a supplementary and then the right hon. member for Prince Albert who has been waiting very patiently for the past 40 minutes.


REQUEST FOR CLOSING LINES TO PROTECT HERRING STOCKS IN PLACENTIA AND ST. MARY'S BAYS
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Fisheries. It also concerns herring. In view of the fact that numerous representations have been made by the fishermen of Placentia and St. Mary's Bays in Newfoundland with regard to the need for closing lines to protect the herring stocks until the study now being undertaken is completed, and in view of the minister's statement in Vancouver last week that the "let's fish and get out" attitude which is being pursued thoughtlessly must stop, will the minister now undertake to have closing lines imposed in those bays to protect the herring stocks until he can determine the size of the stocks and their sustainable yield?


John (Jack) Davis: As the hon. member knows, Mr. Speaker, I prefer closing lines. I have been deferring to an industry committee on which the fishermen in southern Newfoundland are represented. They have asked for more time to study this matter. I am open to suggestions.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising from a statement made by the Minister of Fisheries to the effect there is a dispute between the gillnet fishermen and the seine fishermen as to the question of the catch. In view of information I received within the past hour to the effect that they are agreed on a division formula if they can meet with the minister and get his blessing on it, in my view the minister must either be misinformed or is misinforming the House.


Mr. Speaker:: That, of course, is not a question of privilege. I suggest to the hon. member that it is a question of debate between himself or other members and the minister. The hon. member for St. John's West will be recognized for a supplementary and then the right hon. member for Prince Albert.
Oral Questions


Walter C. Carter: My supplementary question is to the Minister of Fisheries. In his answer the minister referred to the herring management committee. The point I have been making, and I am sure the minister is aware of it, is that there is no scientific data available to help the minister or the herring committee to establish a safe quota. Until such time as that information is available, will the minister consider imposing closing lines to ensure that the herring stocks in those bays are protected?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, there is some information available. Additional data is being sought by research vessels right now. We need more information and have an open mind on the subject.


DEMURRAGE CHARGES ON SHIPS AWAITING CARGOES AT VANCOUVER IN 1972-ANSWER TO ORDER PAPER QUESTION
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, six weeks ago I asked a question of the government in connection with the Wheat Board. It was a very simple question. After the mountain had been in labour for all that period, it produced this mouse. My question was:
What was the total amount paid for demurrage by the Wheat Board in 1972 for ships which were held up in Vancouver Harbour awaiting wheat cargoes?
The answer was $2,326,469.25. The next question is the one that interests the farmers.
Is the Wheat Board to receive payment of said amount from the government of Canada or, if not, is it to be considered as a marketing expense which will come out of the farmer producers?
The answer was as follows:
Where demurrage is incurred for the account of the Canadian Wheat Board, it is considered to be a marketing expense payable out of the Canadian Wheat Board pool accounts.
In other words, it comes from the farmers.
Whether this amount comes out of sales proceeds or from the government of Canada depends on whether a particular account is in deficit or surplus.
Sir, that answer is the antithesis of frankness and could not have been expressed with greater precision. This is deception that the government is endeavouring to practice on the farmers of western Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Danson:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that when the right hon. gentleman rises and makes allusion to a mouse we should smell a rat.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: All the rats are over there.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member has been silent for a long time. On one occasion I said of the hon. member for York North, in the most kindly way that I had concluded after hearing him that he was a wit but I then had to admit that I was only half right.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

February 21, 1973
Oral Questions


An hon. Member:: Old stuff.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to apologize to a number of hon. members in the last row who were not reached. Perhaps we might eliminate the budget debate from the question period tomorrow and recognize immediately hon. members in the last row. Before calling orders of the day I think I might recognize the hon. member for Rimouski.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I was beginning to lose hope. I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
Since the minister recognized that it is impossible for him to find a satisfactory solution to the problems of unemployment and that, consequently, the rate of unemployment, already heartbreaking, particularly in the case of the young, will go up unavoidably, could the minister tell us if he considered setting up a guaranteed annual income as a possible solution to that unfortunate situation?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I must take this question as notice for I could not hear it because of the noise in the House. I trust the hon. member will forgive me.


Eudore Allard: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will repeat my question.
Since the minister recognized that it is impossible for him to find a satisfactory solution to the problems of unemployment and that, consequently, the rate of unemployment, already heartbreaking, particularly in the case of the young, will go up unavoidably, can the minister tell us if he considered setting up a guaranteed annual income as a possible solution to that unfortunate situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Obviously, there is no answer to be offered to the question asked by the hon. member for Rimouski who will probably have the opportunity to raise the issue again tomorrow or to suggest to the Chair that it be discussed at the time of adjournment.


John Carr Munro: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I think my answer to the hon. member for Winnipeg North in connection with the elevator strike might have been somewhat misleading. I should like to advise him that a conciliation board has been appointed and that we are waiting for the union to make its recommendation as to its member on that board.


Mr. Yewchuk:: I am sorry to rise on a point of order at this time, Mr. Speaker, but I am seeking clarification of a matter I have been trying to raise for some time. It concerns the honesty of one of the ministers and I wonder whether I could have an opportunity to ask for clarification of this matter.
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is in the hands of the House. I recognize that the hon. member for Athabasca, along with others, has been attempting to ask a question. I suggested that had we started the question period a little earlier, we might have gotten to him and to others before calling orders of the day. I would hope that the hon. member's question might be allowed to stand until tomorrow so that we can proceed with the business before us. I shall undertake that the hon. member will be given an opportunity tomorrow, along with other members. I tried to note the members who were attempting to ask questions, and I would seek the assistance of all hon. members in giving the Chair an opportunity to recognize them tomorrow.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, February 19, consideration of the motion of Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance) that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, the House will be in a somewhat different mood this afternoon from the mood it was in the other night. Having spent some time profitably reading previous speeches of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) on budgetary matters, I thought I might refer to those other speeches which he made from time to time. I have before me the speech the minister made last fall in Truro. Does he want to read it? In that speech, he referred to certain budgetary and fiscal measures proposed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). It occurs to me he would now want to swallow that speech after chewing it into small pieces- dry. That is the type of punishment he deserves for having made those statements.
I shall not plagiarize the delightful writings of other people who have compared passages in the various statements made by the minister at different times. One such statement was to the effect that the Leader of the Opposition had taken leave of his senses, that his fiscal proposals would increase the budgetary deficit to about $900 million, double what the minister had proposed in June; that it would drive the country to the edge of bankruptcy; that all those measures were utterly irresponsible and ill thought out. But what did the minister have to say the other night? "I come, now, to a budgetary proposal of the greatest significance", he told us. And then he laid out his personal income indexing proposal.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you read George Bain's column?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: All right. That's fine. I will go on to something else. I did refer to the opportunity I had had of reading some delightful writing. But not everybody has a chance of reading that column. I think people all over the country who read Hansard should
February 21, 1973

have the benefit of these comments. This applies also to the minister's speeches in Calgary. I do not know whether an increase from $1.5 billion to $2 billion would ever drive the country to bankruptcy. Yet why would the minister now come along and boast that for the good of the country we should now, in a deficit position, spend some $2 billion more? In June of last year he said such additional expenditure would drive the country into bankruptcy-it was sheer fiscal lunacy on the part of the Leader of the Opposition even to suggest we spend that kind of money. Yet now the expenditure of that amount is supposed to bring the biggest possible benefit to the country and constitute the greatest possible gesture on the part of the Minister of Finance. The hon. gentleman reminds me of the little fellow who pulled out a plum. He has been sitting in the corner and he has pulled out a plum. It is great to hear the minister, having said these things, now telling us that what was irresponsible, what was unacceptable, how they now become policy with the greatest possible benefit. Somebody has called this a chocolate bar budget. Perhaps others would call it a candy budget, recalling the Prime Minister's statement about all the candy which would be handed out-les bonbons que nous allons donner au public canadien.
Then I noticed that another eminent scribe had entitled his column this morning "Budget! Humbug!". Is that the kind of candy included in this budget? We will see.
More seriously, Mr. Speaker, the House was in a very anticipatory mood the other night, and so was the public in the galleries. The stage was set for what I would suggest was one of the most dramatic budget nights we have seen in many years. As my colleague from Calgary South (Mr. Bawden) has said, was this going to be the opening of the wedding presents to see whether the trial marriage between the NDP and the Liberals was going to continue? Was the NDP bride going to find these wedding presents satisfactory? I do not know, but perhaps that accounted for some of the anticipation. Others, particularly those behind the minister who were supporting him, were looking for what they might call political goodies, for those things that would make for a good pre-election budget, no matter if those measures were devoid of any principle. We must remember that the thing is to win the next election, and with a nice cushion of swollen tax receipts the minister would be able to play the bountiful Santa Claus to the Canadian public.
The minister would not tell the Canadian public, of course, that he was merely returning to them money extracted from them by a tax schedule provided for by section 117 of the act which the government of Ontario as well as the members of this House, including the NDP, had told the government would grossly gouge the Canadian public and place in the federal coffers funds far in excess of the government's requirements. We now have an admission that the public was being gouged. The minister says with some pride-at least, he thinks it should be with some pride-that he is leaving with the taxpayers some $1.3 billion as a result of the Income tax changes that are proposed in the budget. As I have pointed out, according to the table of revenue that appeared at page 26 of the minister's budget speech, there will be an excess this year
The Budget-Hon. Marcel Lambert
of $925 million over last year on the personal income tax account. This represents a growth in the Income tax collections of $2.2 billion. Talk about the government benefiting from inflation!
This is all part of the colouring of the atmosphere in this House the other night. However, there were legions all across this country who were looking to see whether the budget would propose some bold measures, measures that would be new departures to deal with the problems that have been with us for years. These problems have not been swept under a rug. The minister's predecessor used to say, having looked at one month's statistics, that the curve had levelled off and that therefore he could promise that we were going to do a lot better. I quoted that speech the minister made last May in which he solemnly declared that the cost of living index would be much improved during 1972, that we would do a great deal better in the field of unemployment. But what do we have? We have a level of increase in the cost of living now that is totally unacceptable to the Canadian people and it just cannot continue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It matters not what it is that influences these cumulative increases. The government had the best of all possible surveillance of these matters, but it strikes me that the surveillance was from the tail of the ostrich with its head in the sand. In other words, they could do nothing, did not want to do anything, and they did nothing.
The personal income tax cut included in this budget is, of course, welcome; there is no doubt about that. But it is less than the figure proposed by the Leader of the Opposition during the last campaign, indeed less than that which we have been proposing all along. Certainly, it is less than what it should be today. It is satisfactory as far as it goes, and I will not gainsay anyone who is able to benefit from this tax reduction. But it only shows, as I have pointed out before, that the tax rates in 1972 grossly overcharged the Canadian public. We are now going to get a decrease in the schedule by one point per tax bracket during 1973. This step was taken by the minister's predecessor to, shall I say, alleviate the possibility of excessive taxation and is statutory.
I also accept the increase of $100 in the personal exemption, but I should point out that the 5 per cent increase in the cost of living has already eroded $75 of the exemption in one year. If you take 5 per cent of $1,500 you will get $75, which brings the $1,500 down, in effect, to $1,425. This $100 increase will make up for the erosion of last year and will provide a partial bridge for this year until the personal income index comes into effect in 1974.
One would have expected there would be some really bold measures to deal with the increase in the cost of living. After all, the minister is relatively new to the job and is not tainted by the attitude that had prevailed when his predecessor was minister. However, the thinking seems to be the same; this budget is set in the same mould as last year's. As I have pointed out, even a lot of the phrases are the same.
As far as the customs tariff reductions are concerned, we have had that sort of thing before, when the only

February 21, 1973
The Budget-Hon. Marcel Lambert
people who suffered as a result were Canadians. We all remember the acceleration of the Kennedy round cuts. There was no diminution in the cost of living index as a result of that move, and here we have a unilateral reduction in the customs tariff. Some of my colleagues in the field of agriculture, and others in the field of industry, tell me they cannot understand the philosophy of the government in making this unilateral move on the eve of new multilateral talks on the reduction of tariffs. Here, we have a whole series of bargaining points that have been given away.


John Napier Turner: They are temporary reductions.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Temporary?


John Napier Turner: That is right, for one year. I said so right in my speech.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: These will not be temporary. I do not anticipate the minister having the opportunity of announcing in the House that he is revising these tariffs and increasing them again.


John Napier Turner: Do not get over-anxious, Marcel.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister tells me not to get over-anxious about this but I am not the one to be over-anxious.
I sometimes wonder about some of the underlying philosophy of this budget. Knowing the minister's position in the hierarchy of the Liberal party, one wonders just what circumstances might have coloured this budget. I do not want to be personal about this matter, but I could suggest all sorts of possibilities.
Quite frankly, this budget has no real economic purpose and no central theme. For instance, does the minister wish to expand the economy and, if so, how will this budget affect regional economic disparities? Has the minister taken steps in this budget with regard to regional economic disparities?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Is the minister doing anything in respect of solving agricultural problems?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I suggest that instead he is creating them in the horticulture industry.


An hon. Member:: Don't be silly.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is so. Does this budget do anything for the building industry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What part of the economy of Canada does the minister intend to benefit by this budget?
[Mi'. Lambert (Edmonton West).]


John Napier Turner: The Canadian consumer.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister says "the Canadian consumer". If that is so, why is there not one measure calculated to control the accelerating cost of living?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is a policy of drift. This is a budget of tinsel, garland and candy. It is superficially attractive and lends itself to the kind of headlines I have seen to the effect that taxes are down and pensions are up. There are a number of proposals which we accept, and it would be quite wrong to reject them. Certainly, the minister will agree that the economic crunch of his budget must be related to the over-all impact. He has stated time and time again that he would attempt to deal with the problems of unemployment and inflation, but nowhere in this budget has he really attempted to do so. He has only expressed some fond hopes. The minister has become expert in professing fond hopes that the economy will somehow be cranked up, that we will see a flattening out of upward pressure on the CPI and also the creation of 330,000 jobs this year.


An hon. Member:: 300,000.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Last year it was 330,000, but this year it is 300,000.


John Napier Turner: It was quite clear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is 300,000 this year.


John Napier Turner: Don't let your leader upset you.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Does the minister believe that the sales tax reductions and the customs tariff reductions will really have an effect on food prices? These reductions certainly will not have an effect on the demand for and the price of houses.


An hon. Member:: What about housing starts?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am sure we would all love to hear another factual speech by the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher). One of these days he will be good enough to bring his attention to bear on some of the true facts of this budget, and tell the Canadian people just how the cost of living is to be reduced and how employment will be increased. That hon. member passes through the city of Toronto regularly. Perhaps, he will tell us how this budget will in any way reduce the rapidly increasing cost of housing in that city. I should think he would have that matter very close to his heart, and we will anticipate his participation in this debate at some time.


An hon. Member:: How about right now?


Mr. Muir:: He gives the government hell and then votes with them,.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In so far as the income tax cuts are concerned, they are generally acceptable to us. I spoke about the basic exemption for a married
February 21, 1973

couple. Perhaps this will take care of the erosion caused by inflation during 1972. However, there is one thing I should like to find out in respect of the minister's charge that the Leader of the Opposition's constant dollar proposal was an impossible one. Were the adjustments made with the consent of the provinces? Has the minister been able to get provincial consent? I hope he will tell me that. Will the individual tax return in 1974 provide for an application of the adjustment formula to only federal tax or will it also apply to provincial tax? Having made the proposal at this time, I hope the minister or one of his colleagues will be able to tell us that this has been negotiated with the provinces, or has been presented as a fait accompli on a take it or leave it basis. Will this only apply to the federal portion of personal income tax? The answer no doubt will be interesting.
The increases in old age security to $100 is a good step forward. It provides some $13 more than would have been provided on April 1 as a result of the cost of living factor which would come into play at that time. We would then have had basic old age security at $86 and some cents. The adjustments in respect of the guaranteed income supplement are in keeping with the adjustments to the war veterans allowances.
However, there is one thing I wish in respect of these adjustments, and that is that the minister had been in consultation with some provincial authorities in respect of those senior citizens who live in nursing homes or senior citizens' homes. I hope that those who are being maintained at public expense will not have the biggest part of this increase in old age security taken from them under the guise of increased rents. I hope the minister will be able to use his good offices in conjunction with those of provincial ministers from one end of the country to the other to see that this does not happen.
I am not trying to make sheep or goats of any of the provinces, ministers or municipalities in this regard, and I know that it may be the municipalities that are involved, but this is my sincere hope. I know that in many instances these homes face municipal tax increases. This could be a frustrating step. If we must have a deficit in one area it is the Canadian taxpayer who must accept the deficit, and let us not try to say it is being passed on to someone else. It is the Canadian taxpayer who ultimately bears the cost of any deficit, if there must be one, to look after senior citizens and those people in public institutions who are better off there than they would be on their own.
There is some relief in respect of customs duties on such things as bagatelle tables, billiard tables, squash rackets, cricket bats and things of that sort. There is also some relief in respect of certain types of vegetables and fruits, and I am sure some of my colleagues from areas in British Columbia and the Niagara Peninsula will have more to say about this. There are others who will have something to say with regard to white hardware. I am not satisfied that this will prove to be a particularly good move. I am not satisfied this reduction will be passed on in any way to the consumer. Is there to be a monitoring system? We have had expressions of pious hopes in the past in respect of the reduction or removal of sales taxes so that the benefit could be passed on to the consumer if the purpose of the reduction is to fight the cost of living.
The Budget-Hon. Marcel Lambert


John Napier Turner: Did you see what Eaton's said today?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, but next month it may be nothing. I know what the Hudson's Bay Company and others have done. I know what the chocolate bar people have said. Some of them have said they will just make a bigger bar for 15 cents.


John Napier Turner: A bigger buy for your money.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: For more money. I know it would have cost the public treasury $200 million or $250 million more, but the minister could have done much more good in the battle against the inflating cost of living by taking off the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials. That step would be directly identifiable.


John Napier Turner: There is to be
monitoring.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In respect of the sales tax reductions on children's clothing, has the minister a system of monitoring to see that this will be of benefit? May I ask the minister how much of that reduction or elimination of sales tax would be absorbed by the counter effect of the 10 per cent devaluation of the Canadian dollar. Childrens clothing which is imported from Japan would cost probably 16 per cent more than the present level. Goods from Hong Kong would cost from 8 per cent to 10 per cent more.


John Napier Turner: Surely, you are not blaming me for what the Janapese are doing?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The point is, Mr. Speaker, that the minister should not tell us in his speech that the reduction in sales tax on children's clothing and on these other commodities will have a very marked effect on the extent of the increase in the cost of living. The minister would have had to take 50 per cent, if he had that much tax on, in order to counterbalance the increase due to devaluation. The point is that building materials come mostly from Canada and the United States where there is not this difference as a result of the change in monetary valuation. I would suggest also to the minister that it is much easier to monitor, as a result of the concentration of these materials, the removal of the 11 per cent or 12 per cent tax from various categories of building materials. I believe the minister would have been further ahead had he spent another $250 million in this area because I suggest that his budget is not expansionary enough.
If one looks at the tables that were given to us yesterday by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) in so far as the spending estimates of the government are concerned, one will recall that that minister said there was a difference of some $2200 million in the estimates between 1972 and 1973. The main claim the minister makes is that he has an expansionary budget. Let us look at table one which appears at page 16. If one looks at the budgetary estimates and non-budgetary estimates for 1972-73 and compares them to 1973-74 one can see there is not a

February 21, 1973
The Budget-Hon. Marcel Lambert difference of $2200 million. There is less than $900 million that the President of the Treasury Board called principal estimates. He conveniently forgot the $1800 million which came in as a supplementary estimate which we just passed. It is the other estimates at which we must look. Therefore, there is no question that this is an expansionary budget. This blue book of estimates reports the spending program of the government.
Now, in respect of the 5 per cent cost of living increase factor let us see where one stands in relation to the 1972-73 estimates. That amount of $800 million I spoke about disappears. Therefore, outside of the inflationary factor, and applied to last year's estimates, there is no change and yet this is supposed to be an expansionary budget.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: They will end up with a big surplus again.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister made certain proposals with regard to tax reform. It is unfortunate that many taxpayers will be caught in a real bind this year. I hoped the minister could have had a word to give these people, because the law of 1971 says that they had to take certain action by 1973. The action taken by the taxpayers was supposed to be subject to regulations, but the regulations have not even been drawn up. Is there no way that the minister could have indicated, for instance in respect of the foreign affiliates provisions of the Income Tax Act, that the date which appeared in Bill C-222 would be changed. There are taxpayers in this country who, if they are to follow the law, will have to undertake extensive administrative changes. However, nothing has been said.
A similar situation exists in respect of discretionary trusts where the beneficiaries are supposed to make elections according to certain regulations. Substantial assets of Canadians, not strangers, are involved in this and yet these regulations have not even been drafted let alone promulgated. The minister has given no indication in this regard. I would hope he would have his colleague the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Stanbury) stand in his place during this debate and make an authoritative statement in respect of all these matters. I know it will take some time to get Bill C-222 before this House and passed, but the taxpayer is entitled to justice. His fate should not be to be kept dangling in suspense because of the inability of the Finance Department, the Department of National Revenue or the other people involved in finance to agree or because of the deletoriousness at the cabinet level in agreeing on certain provisions. The taxpayer is entitled to a better deal than that.
There was one point that was raised by the Minister of Finance in answering the Leader of the Opposition, with regard to the $890 million which appears as a statutory item under the Department of Manpower and Immigration. This is a bookkeeping entry, but it is not part of an expansionary budget. It does not put one dollar into the economy. All it does is to meet the deficit in the unemployment insurance account which is finally computed with accuracy at the end of April. It goes to repay the advances the Minister of Finance has made under section 134 of the Unemployment Insurance Act. That is all that the $890

million does. It appears as part of this total $19 billion. As a matter of fact, I find that this year's estimates are below last year's, if one looks at the effect of the increasing cost of living which affects the government as much as it does anybody else. If the inflationary factor is applied, and this $890 million is not included, then this year's estimates are well below last year's. Not one dollar of this $890 million will ever appear in circulation; it is a bookkeeping entry.
This budget was supposed to deal with the problem of unemployment. Of course, it is an added bust when it comes to that. There is not within one ministry one proposal that actually makes a constructive effort to expand the economy. There is nothing there that will provide one meaningful job. There are some additional transfer payments.


Mr. Paproski:: Long overdue.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: They will be transfer payments; they will increase pensions; they will pay more under medicare and for health care. But that does not increase the number of jobs for Canadians.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Where are those jobs?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Those are the things that we want to see. Having made these criticisms of the budget, and having indicated how the minister has failed to face up to the principal economic problems of this country, let me point out the third economic problem in this country, which looms large in the minds of many people, namely, the smaller degree of participation by Canadians in the ownership of Canadian business and development. The minister had a wonderful opportunity in this budget to do something positive with regard to that situation. There were many things he could have done to help Canadians acquire a bigger share of their own assets in business, and I do not care what kind of business it is, or a greater measure of control in their own resource development. I know that the minister's colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) has a bill on the order paper, but the bill is entirely negative. It says: thou shalt not, thou shalt not, thou shalt not, all the way through. But does it tell Canadians: you may, or, you will be allowed to?


Mr. Baker:: Nor does it say: we will help you.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is the type of positive action that should be taken, and it could have been taken simply through amendments to the Income Tax Act. Why is there even a partial continuation of the principal occupation rule which bars Canadians from participating in resource development on equal terms with their American counterparts? You have tied the hands of Canadians behind their backs. You have done it for years. Certainly, in Bill C-259 there was a partial relief, but it was only partial; you untied one tiny knot but that arm is still up behind the back. In other sectors there are snack-les round the ankles of Canadians as taxpayers in competition with foreigners in the development and ownership of Canadian resources.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The administration moved in the right direction to eliminate estate taxes. The province of Alberta went the right way in not moving into that field. I trust that the province of Quebec will live up to its promise to do the same and that Ontario will do the same because in my book, in so far as the ownership and development of Canadian business and enterprise is concerned, there has been no greater shackle than the piracy under the succession duty legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: We have seen hundreds and thousands of Canadian businesses that have had to come on the market at fire sale prices in order to meet the rapacious demands of the government's financial policy, the pound of flesh of the "have-nots" and of those who have worked in this country. It is an outdated method going back to the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in Britain to break up landed estates. It is of no application in this country. How many good Canadian businesses, from small ones to major ones, have had to go on the market, and who was there with the money to buy the shares at fire sale prices? There were our friends south of the border and our friends across the ocean. There is not one member in the House who cannot call to memory some classic examples of that.


Mr. Lewis:: I am one.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You have been blind. I can tell you of any number of them.


David Lewis: Your tears for the poor millionaires who are dying really shower over me.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: They are not millionaires, Mr. Speaker, many of them. We want to pile on the agony higher and higher succession duties. They will find out who sells before succession duties come on and how they sell and to whom they sell.


David Lewis: If you have an opportunity to buy some, what are you yelling about?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I would have said that by changing the Income Tax Act, by persuasion with regard to succession duties, this situation could be avoided. Since the minister apparently had another good look at some of the fiscal proposals of the Leader of the Opposition and he found some to his liking, what about the small business investment tax credit that the Leader of the Opposition proposed to encourage Canadians? That would help Canadians to take a share in Canadian business.
I would like to make a proposal with regard to our resource development, and this would not cost the government anything at this time. Let us determine what is resource development from one end of the country to the other, and let us reserve this privilege for the average Canadian citizen and say to him: "Canadian, invest $1,000, $5,000". After all, what money can the average Canadian have? Invest it in the equities of whatever company or development you want within the ball park of the determined resource development. Then, you can sell that
The Budget-Hon. Marcel Lambert
stock and buy another as long as you keep your capital and accrual to your capital within that ball park. If you want to get out at the end of one year and there is a capital gain, we will forgive you 20 per cent and then 20 per cent for each succeeding year. For instance, if the Minister of National Revenue has left our good friend the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) with a few shekels and he has been able to invest $1,000 in resource development equities and finds at the end of five years they are worth $1,200, that is a $200 capital gain. One hundred dollars of that would be taxable, but because he has held the investment for five years we will forgive him the capital gains tax. This would apply to Canadian citizens only.
You may say that we are discriminating, but do we not all discriminate in some form or another? The government's legislation is certainly discriminatory when it comes to foreign takeovers and control of foreign investment. What-I am saying is that within the Income Tax Act there would be an advantage available to Canadian citizens only to invest in Canadian resource development. Unless the investment is made, there is no tax that is lost; a taxable income will be earned providing the investment is there but there must be an incentive.
This is not a novel plan, Mr. Speaker. A variation of it has been tried in other countries, such as Australia, where the degree of ownership of natural resource development is far higher than in Canada because of such an incentive. This is, I suggest, a positive gesture in favour of Canadians owning a greater share of the resource development of this country.
Coming to the point-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Coming to the point of unemployment and those massive measures needed to turn the corner, Mr. Speaker, all sorts of proposals have been tried by the government over the past several years but there were still 688,000 people seeking work this last month.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Can we, as Canadians, in good conscience continue to say that we can carry this load, that this becomes something we must get accustomed to, that it is something we have to bear like arthritis or rheumatism? Of course not. I would have thought that the Minister of Finance would have seized the opportunity to do something bold and imaginative. I would say that he should not have been content with this set of estimates which frankly are no greater than last year.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Throw it at him, Marcel.


John Napier Turner: He couldn't make it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Don't tempt me. On the
basis of his forecast as to the gross national product and income, the minister should have said "I am going to make a massive attack on unemployment with a real

February 21, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Saltsman
expansionary budget. Something drastic has to be done; the corner has to be turned and we have not done it so tar."
My colleagues the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) and my leader are going to elaborate on this point. On this occasion, a Conservative minister of finance would have introduced a really expansionary budget and if you want figures it could be $21 billion or $3 billion to really do a job and at the same time not be afraid to impose a total price freeze and then phased price controls in order to contain inflation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: We saw the example of a price freeze and phased controls in the United States. There will be some argument as to how effective it was at the time.


John Napier Turner: Food prices went up in the United States by 3 per cent in one month.


Mr. Lawrence:: What are you doing in Canada?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The point is this, Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Is this the point?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. member who keeps yapping in the background would never understand in a year of Sundays. The minister should understand that the inflation psychology was blunted in the United States. The minister has another step to take as far as taxation is concerned and this is to turn that psychology-to get away from this anticipation of continuing inflation. The minister knows very well that there is a national psychological feeling with regard to inflation. Other countries have taken such steps and it would be in the interest of Canadians to do the same. The Conservative party would not be afraid to do this at this time. In future, if the circumstances are the same, I am satisfied that such steps would be taken without hesitation.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin):
To strike out all the words after "that" and substitute the following:
While acknowledging certain beneficial provisions in the budget proposals, this House regrets that they do not contain measures that will substantially reduce continuing high unemployment, effectively contain the spiralling cost of living or provide any incentives to Canadians to increase their participation in Canadian business enterprise and development.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, in looking at this amendment I see that caution got the better of the drafters and they did not add the words "like the last Conservative government" when I think we had 10 per cent unemployment in this country. It is always a pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to follow the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert); of course, I mean to follow him in the sense of time rather than in the sense of agreeing with him.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is because you have never understood it.


Max Saltsman: In a few moments, as I listened to what he said, I thought he would support the budget. He seemed to suggest that there are all kinds of good things in it, things that he supports; yet, somehow or other, he never quite made that statement. I think he came down in favour of virtually everything except bringing back the enclosure laws.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Max Saltsman: You know, it is hard for a man to have faith anymore. It is hard to know what one can believe in.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Nowlan:: Waterloo is the right constituency for the hon. member. He will soon meet his Waterloo.


Max Saltsman: At one time, the Conservative party was the party of fiscal integrity. You knew where it stood.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: So did the Minister of Finance, and now look at him.


Max Saltsman: However, when the spokesman for the Conservative party says that the $2 billion deficit-and this is really something-is not sufficient, it is apparent that the day of balanced budgets is over and fiscal responsibility has gone by the board. We decided we were going to support this budget-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Surprise, surprise.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The hon. member means, support the trained seals on the government side.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see how responsive my friends in the official opposition are. I think I should make clear what we are supporting.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: We know; your own political hides.


Max Saltsman: Oh, no.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Oh, yes. There is no surtax on them.


Max Saltsman: We are supporting specific measures contained in this budget, and not those contained in the previous budget brought down last May. This is a much better budget. I know the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has taken on himself the onerous task of being our conscience and advising us on how we should maintain our purity. I do not want him to think we do not appreciate him, because we do appreciate him.


An hon. Member:: Stanley is in shock.


Max Saltsman: Let him get his facts straight so that, while acting as our conscience, he does not inadvertently become misled.


An hon. Member:: Stanley is still in shock.


Max Saltsman: Let me explain our position. This is not a budget that we, if we were a government, would have brought down. We have reservations about many provi-


sions in this budget. We have reservations about the size of the deficit. We think it should have been larger, that more stimulation should have been applied.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Well, well.


Max Saltsman: Oh, yes. We had other considerations in mind. Perhaps the deficit will not be the determining factor in the amount of employment that will be created in this country. That is one of many considerations which must be taken into account. We suggest that there must be a change in the mix of economic policies followed in this country. We must move away from resource development that does not provide job opportunities and move into the manufacturing sector that does provide them. There is considerable evidence to indicate that, in the past, the size of deficits has not been the only important consideration.
I recall that in 1960-61 the Conservative government of the day, faced with a 10 per cent unemployment rate, also budgeted for a deficit but failed to create jobs. Why, Mr. Speaker? I will tell you why. When the government was budgeting for a deficit capital was coming in, resource development was taking place, interest rates was being forced up, our dollar was too high, and these factors tended to nullify any effects that might otherwise have been felt from the budget deficit. Unless the government introduces a whole range of policies designed to bring down the level of our dollar and curb resource development, and this c.an be done by accepting the Carter Commission proposals and taxing resource industries more heavily than now, the budgetary deficit in itself will not be sufficient.
The increase in old age pensions, although highly acceptable and welcome, is not one with which we are prepared to be satisfied. We will not be satisfied with the increase announced and will continue to urge the government to increase that amount again. I think this is the position my party has taken for a long time, and it is a position that the party will continue to take. It was not many years ago that J. S. Woodsworth stood in this House and pleaded for a $20 old age pension. We can look back on those years with satisfaction. We have not achieved everything we wanted, but we have certainly come some distance from those days. I think my colleagues and I can take great pleasure in knowing that, from time to time, we have been in the position of exerting influence on governments to increase the old age pension in accordance with precepts of equity and justice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Max Saltsman: We have reservations about the indexed income system, that great idea the Liberals stole from the Conservatives. I know there is a poverty of ideas within that party, as well as on the government side. That, certainly, was not one of their better ideas. The indexed income issue was phony from day one, because if you adjust income tax rates from year to year you will achieve exactly the same results. Nevertheless, the government saw fit to steal that idea from the Conservative party. I understand the Conservatives are feeling uncomfortable. They are not accustomed to having their ideas stolen. After all, why steal from them? If you are going to steal, why go to an empty cupboard?
The Budget-Mr. Saltsman


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Max Saltsman: We are more accustomed to having our ideas stolen. Actually, in a sense, we wear clothes with large seams, to make sure that when they are stolen they are suitable for others. In time, the great Progressive Conservative party will become accustomed to the idea and accept it with the graciousness that one should acquire from this sincere form of flattery. I will return to the indexed tax system later. At this time, I merely want to note my reservations about it. I do not think it will do a great deal of harm or a great deal of good. I simply think it was a phony issue; nevertheless, there it is.
On balance, this is a better budget than any I have ever seen brought before this House-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Max Saltsman: -by any majority government. It is far from perfect, and we have reservations about it. If you compare this budget with the kinds of budgets Canadians have had to swallow from majority governments, I think you can say on balance that there has been an improvement. I am including Conservative as well as Liberal governments in my comments.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: You will not swallow it for more than six months, if you are here.


Max Saltsman: I do not know where the hon. member will be, but I intend to be here.


An hon. Member:: I thought you were not going to run again.


Max Saltsman: I will be here until then. While we recognize that we did not get everything we wanted, the government accepted many ideas we have been putting forward for a long time. My party has 31 seats in this House and we took 18 per cent of the vote in Canada in the last election. We do not expect, because circumstances have placed us in the position of exerting enormous bargaining power, to use that power to extract everything we want.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no?


Max Saltsman: I do not think we have the right to do that. On the other hand, we have the responsibility to act on behalf of the voters who voted for us in this country and gave us the seats we hold. We have always held seats in this House and people have always voted for us but, because there have been majority governments, our influence was not given the recognition that it deserved. In a majority House, all parties have influence. That is the way it should be. This government has accommodated itself to us, and so it should have, not only this time but at all other times in the past. It is the failure of majority governments to accommodate minorities that should be condemned, rather than the failure of minority governments to accommodate minorities in this House.
Instead of the 3 per cent tax cut that the government would have been content with before the last election, there is to be a 12 per cent tax cut. Mr. Speaker, it is a 12

February 21, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Saltsman
per cent tax cut and it is a progressive tax cut. The government has, in fact, accepted in an indirect way one of the proposals we have been making for a tax credit. The idea of having a lower minimum of $100 and a maximum of $500 is basically the same principle as a tax credit. It increases the progressiveness of the tax system to a remarkable degree. As my leader said, this is not the millennium, but it is the acceptance of an important principle that the chief beneficiaries of tax cuts should be at the lower rather than at the higher end of the taxation scale. To the extent that this is being accepted, we are for it. It is four times more than Canadians would have gotten under other circumstances.
The old age pension is being increased by roughly 15 per cent. Veterans pensions have been increased by roughly the same amount. Even the farmers have received some benefits this time. As I recall, in the last budget there was not a single word about farmers. It was as though they did not exist. It looks as though the government in its desperation to remain in office, and I am glad it got desperate enough to think about this, went back over our amendments and decided to pick up some of the ideas we advocated, and in fairness, some of the ideas the Conservatives and Social Credit party advocated.
I remember arguing strongly, as did other members from Saskatchewan, that a farm should be passed on to a son or another member of the family without the payment of a capital gains tax. At the time we moved that amendment, the obstacles for the Liberal party seemed insurmountable. Somehow or other, those obstacles have melted away. We are glad the idea has been accepted and, I think, it has been accepted in a very intelligent way. As long as the farm passes to a member of the family who continues to farm, no capital gains tax is payable. If the farm passes into speculation or some other use, a tax becomes payable, which is right and proper.
There has been a return to measures that permit the building of herds. This is an argument that was made by people in our party as well as the Conservative party. Under the previous tax system, the possibility of building a herd in the early years was not being treated with the consideration it deserved. The government has moved to correct that. To that extent, I think the present budget is useful.
The Minister of Finance, with all his taking ways, has apparently played no favourites. He has robbed everybody. Everyone has had to give up something, involuntarily of course. He is taking from everyone. The government is repaying an obligation it has owed the Social Credit party since 1963 when that party supported their motion and brought down the government. I note the son of the leader of the Social Credit party spoke with approval on the government's position to raise the old age pension and gave the Social Credit party the credit. That party had been advocating a $350 a month pension for married couples. He feels that the $330 is very much in line with what they wanted and he seems to be somewhat satisfied.
As I said earlier, the government also took an idea from the Conservatives, such as it was. I know this will reinforce the belief of the Conservative party that it pays to

advertise. All the running around this country advocating this idea, publicizing it, and speaking about it over television and to newspaper men has paid off. The Conservatives got what they wanted. The government accepted their idea. I presume that if they have an idea like that in the future, they will restrict it to the confines of their caucus in case the Minister of Finance steals it.
Something was taken from everyone. Even the page boys got to the receptive Minister of Finance on the candy bars. He has been very accommodating in that way. I would not want to have it appear that the Minister of Finance is a man totally devoid of ideas, because he is not. He has a lot of ideas, one of which is the leadership of the Liberal party. He has a lot of ideas aside from that. In fact, he has done some significant things in this budget and should be given credit for them.
One thing that was done, and the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) did not think very much of this, was to unilaterally reduce the tariffs on certain items that do not significantly affect employment in Canada. That is an important step. I do not remember another occasion when a government unilaterally removed tariffs. If they did, I do not remember when it was. Whenever there was such a reduction in the past, it was always based on trading off something we have against something another country had. I realize this is only a temporary reduction and the trading potential is still there. It may be somewhat diminished. I hope the minister will not deny that. Nevertheless, the potential is still there.
What is important is that the government is prepared to use an instrument of policy to control consumer prices, something it should have used a long time ago. As long ago as the MacQuarrie commission report on combines, the recommendation to the government was that when you find collusion in the market place and working people are not affected by having some advantages passed along to the consumer, the government should act to remove their tariff protection. They have never done that. On each occasion where collusion was found and a recommendation for tariff removal should have been in order, the government took the position that it could not do it because it would be giving away its bargaining rights at the next round of negotiations. An insignificant fine was levied against the monopolies and they charged what the traffic would bear.
This particular measure, although it does not affect an enormous range of products, still affects enough products for it to have an impact. Its chief impact will not be that prices will be dramatically lowered as a result of the action that was taken. Its chief impact will be, if the government is alive to what it is doing, a warning to industries that do not pass on the savings they should that a government can make a recommendation to have their tariff protection removed. In the long run, it is important for this country to move toward tariff removal. Because of the nature of our country and the feeling in the west against tariff protection, the more we move in that direction without harming those industries which are in a special position, the better things will be. Therefore, I welcome that particular proposal in the budget. I see it as an innovative proposal for which the Minister of Finance should take some credit.
February 21, 1973

I said earlier that the inclusion of a minimum and a maximum amount for reduction of the income tax is a good feature because it increases the progressiveness of the tax schedule. I am glad to see that the government, after its conversations with the provincial governments, has moved to accept one of their arguments for including school taxes in the tax base. That is very important to many of the provinces.
Let me turn now, to another item in this budget which I feel to be of significance. I have said many nice things about the Minister of Finance. I think this particular thing was not by design. It is something he tripped over in his desire to keep support in this House. We have suffered enormously in this country from a decision made by Liberal governments of previous years that the worst thing we have to face in Canada is inflation rather than unemployment. As a result of that decision, this country was plunged into an unnecessary recession. There were enormous losses in production, untold hardship among the unemployed and enormous damage to our capacity as a nation to do good things and move ahead. It was a disastrous policy on the part of the Liberal government when they decided that inflation was the number one enemy. Inflation was, of course, an important matter. No one can dismiss it as insignificant.
But far more important was the need to concentrate on getting people to work, on providing jobs for Canadian people. Advice given at the time was ignored. Everything the government did was designed to contain an inflation which was largely international. This budget changes that pattern in a number of ways: first, by recognizing that it is necessary to run a sizeable deficit. I think most people will agree with me that the deficit was not large enough but it is a continuation of a deficit and it is bound to have an inflationary affect at the same time that it is stimulating the economy. But more than that, members opposite have accepted a principle we have put forward on many occasions. Yet, let us do what we can to contain inflation, but let us not kid ourselves that we can contain every aspect of inflation. Therefore, let us assure that those on fixed incomes are compensated while we are fighting the fight against inflation and not held, as they have been held, as hostages to a government with intentions that it could not match with action. Now, that has been accepted. The old age pension is indexed. You have gone beyond that. Veterans pensions are indexed and now they have picked up the Conservative idea of indexing the income tax.
As I said earlier, I do not think it is a very good idea, but it is an acceptance of a certain kind of principle. There is nothing much to get excited about one way or the other, because what is really important about the taxes people pay is the rate. It doesn't much matter whether you make this adjustment of 4 per cent up or down or in or out or sideways. That has been accepted. If you want to subtitle the minister's speech, it might be called "How to limit inflation and like it." It frees the minister's hands, now, to start moving this country ahead. These indexes are "in" and those who are going to be hurt by inflation will be compensated. Therefore, the government's No. 1 priority has to be the same as it should have been in the past, namely to get full employment in Canada.
The Budget-Mr. Saltsman
In October, when the dust had cleared, parliament wound up in an unusual position. The early talk was that the country would be ungovernable and that parliament would be unmanageable. All of us were given a share of power. The question was, how would each party use that power. The Liberals have less power than before and they have proven themselves somewhat more accommodating as a result. Even the language in the House has improved to some extent. How have the Conservatives behaved?


Mr. Gilbert:: Terribly.


Max Saltsman: You are right, they have behaved terribly. They have a little more power than they had before, and it has gone to their heads. All they can think of is bringing the government down and getting themselves in. If the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert (Mr. Die-fenbaker) were here, he could tell a story of how he laughed at the Liberals in 1957 when they suggested to him, get out, get out and let us in; we are the chosen. Now, the Conservatives seem to have picked up the same theme. They are the chosen and the Liberals should make way for them. I do not think it is a position which would be accepted in the country.


Mr. Morgan:: Let's find out.


Max Saltsman: You will find out soon enough. You certainly did not get any endorsation in the last election.


J. Trevor Morgan: Nor did you.


Max Saltsman: No, we didn't get one, but we have not let it go to our heads, either!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Max Saltsman: Given such a situation, the responsibility of making parliament work has to a large extent fallen on the New Democratic Party. Some hon. members may laugh, but that is because they do not want parliament to work. We campaigned on the basis that we were going to make parliament work, and that is our commitment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Max Saltsman: That is why, on a budget which has been designed to meet some of our objectives, and the objectives of other political parties, we think those responsible for it are deserving of support. It is for that reason we intend to support them. We intend to live up to our responsibility of seeing that parliament functions as long as it brings in good legislation. That should be clear. I should like to repeat what I said earlier. Our support is for this budget and for the ways and means motions which flow from this budget alone. There should be no misconstruing of the position of the New Democratic Party in relation to other matters which may come before us.
This budget has got something for everyone. Economists will like it because of the tariff proposals; consumers will like it for a similar reason; old age pensioners are receiving some benefits, veterans are receiving some benefits, farmers are receiving some benefits, small business is receiving some benefit; all taxpayers are receiving some benefits and the provinces are receiving some benefits. It has been without a doubt one of the most political

February 21, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Matte
budgets this country has ever seen and I say "political" in the best meaning of that word. Some of those great economic budgets which were designed by governments with a large majority turned out to be complete fiascos. This time, out of sheer necessity, out of the need to adapt itself to the various opinions held in this House, I think we have a political budget which is a good budget. Speaking to me about it the other day, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) called it a survival budget, a survival kit. Well, it is a survival kit. It is the government's survival kit. If I may quote Samuel Johnson:
Depend on it, Sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight it concentrates his mind wonderfully.
Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate the Minister of Finance on his powers of concentration?


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, we were really eager to hear the budget speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) last Monday.
I do not know whether the fact of having been chosen the fifth best-looking Canadian, male had some effect on him, but he seems to have rewarded his supporters with candy.
So many promises had been made! So nice things had been suggested! Such a renewed governmental policy in the economic and social fields had been predicted that we were expecting a budget repleted with social and economic measures meant to give satisfaction to Canadian taxpayers.
We had been told, Mr. Speaker, that the government had seen the light in October last when the Canadian electors had clearly indicated that they were not satisfied with its performance and had threatened to remove it, if it did not amend shortly.
The Liberal government had then promised to mend its ways, to make it up with the people and listen to their most urgent requests and it had then brought forward a Throne Speech which enabled us to believe that it was finally to govern in the best interests of the Canadian people.
Having heard Monday night the Minister of Finance make amends and admit the past mistakes and faults of the Liberal government, having heard him implicitly state that the government had failed to find employment for those who wished to work and that family budgets are burdened as a result of price increases and taxes of all kinds, we were expecting more thorough reforms, more effective measures to solve the unemployment problem in order to assure the security of all Canadians and reduce prices to an acceptable level for Canadian consumers.
Now, what does the Minister of Finance say in his budget? The purpose of this budget, he says, is to bring about a substantial reduction in unemployment. The budget, he adds, is aimed at the faster growth of our economy, at reducing inflationary pressures and the squeeze of rising prices on family budgets. Finally, this budget, according to the Minister of Finance, is aimed at increasing the real income and improving the standard of living of Canadians.
[Mr. Saltsman.l
That means, Mr. Speaker, that the minister recognizes the gravity of the unemployment situation. The government admits that our economy is not healthy. This means as well that they admit that inflation was not licked and this finally means that they admit that many Canadians are in need and deserve a better fate.
Mr. Speaker, has the Minister of Finance taken the necessary steps to prevent thousands of Canadians from being unemployed? Does that mean that the Minister of Finance announced the decision of the government to secure economic security for all Canadians? Finally, does that mean that the hon. Minister of Finance found a way to stop the inflation and the rapid increase in prices which continuously swallows up an ever increasing part of family budgets?
To find an answer to these questions, Mr. Speaker, we will analyse some of the proposals contained in the budget to find out if the announced measures will be enough to solve the present problems of our economy.
In the Montreal Gazette of Tuesday February 20, 1973, the editorial is entitled: "The Candy Budget". The author reminds us that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has undertaken, in a speech which will undoubtedly last for ever, that if the government was reelected, it would distribute goodies to the people of Canada. According to the Gazette, the hon. Minister of Finance took this statement seriously since he announced the removal of the sales tax on chocolate bars.
In its Tuesday issue, the Toronto Globe and Mail also speaks about "candy kisses" contained in the budget introduced by the Minister of Finance.
Finally, in the Journal de Montreal published on Tuesday, one can read the following title: "At last we have them, Trudeau's candies" and reporter Jacques Guay writes about it, and I quote:
Mr. Trudeau keeps his promises. He promised "candies", lots of candies to Quebecers. He kept his word in his first minority budget. If the manufacturers do not keep everything for themselves, we will pay less for Pepsi, chips, make-up, Dentyne gum and Caramilk bars, thanks to Mr. Turner's last budget.
That then is the tone the Minister of Finance gave his budget: "candies", cheaper candies, Dentyne gum, and soda-pop, more crumbs. But that budget does not hold anything of sustenance. Yet, they claim they want to solve the problem of unemployment and give economic security to the Canadians.
First, let us study the celebrated matter of the cuts in excise tax and duties on some imported goods. In his "Supplementary Information on the Budget", the Minister of Finance explained as follows:
The budget proposes important new exemptions from the federal sales tax and the removal of special excise taxes on many consumer items. While the changes are effective immediately, their full impact on retail prices may not be felt until goods upon which the taxes have already been paid move to retail shelves and are sold.
When he brought down his first budget on May 8, 1972, the minister stated that the economic expansion would put an end to unemployment and that inflation would at last be controlled.
February 21, 1973

We know what happened. The rate of unemployment has kept on going up while prices are at a record high. That should give us an indication of what we should believe when the Minister of Finance tells us that the cuts in sales taxes and excise taxes will benefit the Canadian consumer.
What gives to the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) assurance that lowering the sales tax and removing special excise taxes will benefit the consumer and not the retailer? What gives him assurance that some retailers will not take the opportunity either to increase their profits or to try to improve their unsteady situation because they have difficulty in striking a balance and meeting their expenditures? Who then will benefit from these lower sales and excise taxes and what measures will the government take in order that these cuts are really passed on to the consumer?
And why have especially chosen chocolate bars or Den-tyne chewing gum as typical products on which the government wants to make sales taxes disappear?
For years now, Mr. Speaker, the Social Credit party of Canada and other opposition parties have been asking the government to eliminate that nuisance tax on building materials. For years, house builders have been requesting the elimination of that 11 per cent tax on building materials whose fall outs are heavily felt in the budget of all Canadian families, either in the monthly payment they have to make to pay for their house or in the rental payment they must make each month. The elimination of that tax would have been more beneficial and logical for the Canadian consumer than that proposed by the Minister of Finance for "candies" and bubble gum.
Secondly, the minister proposes an increase in the basic exemption on personal income; he also proposes to reduce personal income tax.
Let us say first of all that we do not understand how is it that between an income of $3,000 and another one of $6,000, the only difference in the tax reduction for the unmarried taxpayer earning that income will be a mere $2.
The same phenomenon recurs in the case of the salaried married man with two dependent children and whose annual income varies from $5,000 to $10,000. The wage-earner whose income is $5,000 will benefit from a $137 reduction a year, while another man earning $10,000 will have a reduction of $145 a year. How come the one earning $10,000 is entitled to a $145 reduction while the other who is getting $5,000 would only receive $137? The latter certainly needs a bigger cut than the one earning $10,000 a year.
The minister assures us in the budget that such measures will permit to salvage the family funds which are depleted by inflation and rising prices.
Looking at the statistics supplied by the minister himself on page 13 of the "Supplementary Information on the Budget" we notice first that, for instance, the married taxpayer with two dependent children under 16 and whose income is $6,000 a year will get a reduction in the federal and provincial tax of $139 for the year 1973. The amount of $139 annually corresponds to a $2.66 supplement a week in the taxpayer's pay envelope whose income
The Budget-Mr. Matte
is $6,000 and who, furthermore, has two dependent children under 16. A weekly supplement of $2.66 works out to 38 cents a day for four persons or, if you prefer, 91 cents a day per person. This 91 cents a day per person does not even buy a 10 cent chocolate bar from which the excise tax has been removed.
All this means, Mr. Speaker, that we should not be bowled over by the budgetary proposals of the Minister of Finance.
The married taxpayer with two 16-year-old children and an income of $6,000 will not even be able to buy a chocolate bar for 10 cents a day with the tax reduction the federal government has just granted him. This is for the birds.
Let us now look at this problem from another point of view, using the same example of a married taxpayer with two children under 16 and an annual income of $6,000.
After looking over the tables which the Minister of Finance himself supplied, we know this particular taxpayer will pay $139 less in 1973 for income tax. This means he will have $139 more in his pockets than before income tax reduction. On comparing with 1972, one wonders what will be the benefits for the taxpayer. According to Statistics Canada monthly publication no. 62-001 on consumer price movements, the consumer price index as regards food prices has risen by 13.6 per cent in 1972 and it stands at 150 for January 1973 compared with 136.4 in January 1972. As explained by Statistics Canada, this is a proportional increase of 10 per cent.
What is the equivalent of an annual or weekly increase of 10 per cent for food in a family budget for four people.
As usual, we are going to obtain an answer from the government itself in a bulletin released February 15 last by the Department of Agriculture under the title: "Tastes Dictate Grocery Bills". In that publication, the Department of Agriculture seems to insinuate that Canadians want to eat too well, hence the increase in the price of foods.
The Department of Agriculture shows three sample budgets for Canadian families.
The first one is a budget of misery which is pompously called moderate. It is set at $28.70 weekly.
The second budget which is highly recommended by the Department of Agriculture is an average budget for a family of four and which amounts to $47.76 weekly. Finally, there is the "generous" budget which amounts to $49.90 weekly.
For analysis purposes, let us study the intermediate weekly budget of $47.76 for an average family of four. I would compare this, Mr. Speaker, with the amount of $39 per person granted by the Quebec Department of Social Affairs, with the fact it is considered normal to spend $47.76 weekly.
If it is estimated that in theory the typical budget on January 1, 1973 would have amounted to $47.76 in practice it would have amounted to about $43, removing that 10 per cent because prices have increased by 10 per cent since January 1, 1972. This would amount to a weekly

February 21, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Matte
increase of $4.75 in the food budget of a family of four, over the year 1972, that is an annual increase of $247.
But what do they suggest to grant a family of four which draws an income of $6,000 a year? The Minister of Finance proposes to give it a tax reduction of $139. How can the minister explain that with $139 one can buy $247 worth of goods? This is a mathematical impossibility if one considers simply the case of the government concerning the moderate food budget introduced by the Minister of Agriculture.
What am I saying, Mr. Speaker? This average family of four whose annual income is $6,000 cannot even afford the low price food basket, the poor man's basket at $28.70 that the Minister of Agriculture suggests in the release that I referred to earlier.
Mr. Speaker, considering that the increase in the cost of living has been 10 per cent in the case of food over 1972, it can be said that today's market basket, costing $28.70, cost $25.83 in January 1972. We can say that basket now costs $2.87 more a week which for 1973 makes $149.24 more than in 1972. Now, the Minister of Finance has found no better compensation for that increase in the cost of food than a tax cut of $139. That family will therefore be $10.24 short for the purchase of a poor man's basket during the 52 weeks of 1973.
And that, of course, includes none of the other increases, rents, transportation, gasoline, medical care, leisure. Everything is increasing, Mr. Speaker, and we are all aware of that.
We have no congratulations to extend to the Minister of Finance for the minor tax cut he is offering the average Canadian taxpayer.
However, the minister did better when he announced an increase in old age security pensions. Of course, we know that these pensions will be increased from $82.88 to $100 a month beginning April 1, that is an increase of $17.22 per month. We believe that all Canadians who have reached pension age have the right to an equal pension sufficient to allow them a decent life. This pension must be high enough to enable them to benefit from Canada's wealth, from Canadian production and from all that the activity and genius of Canadian workers can make available to them.
This is why, we, of the Social Credit Party, are once more today proposing that the elderly person who retires should receive at least $200 per month whereas his or her spouse should receive at least $150 per month, no matter what his or her age.
We believe that the government has lost a magnificient opportunity to bring more happiness into numerous homes for the elderly in Canada by not allowing the spouse of the retired individual the right to receive this pension as soon as the breadwinner of the family or couple retires.
Nevertheless, we recognize that the government has taken a step in the right direction and we congratulate ourselves, of the Social Credit Party, for always having been at the vanguard of those who were asking for better conditions for the elderly and the retired whereas our

Liberal friends are only beginning to become aware of this. Not so long ago, Mr. Speaker, the government was simply refusing to increase the basic old age pension.
On May 4, 1970, during a vote on a motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg-North-Centre (Mr. Knowles) to increase the basic pension to $150 per month, the Minister of Finance and the right hon. Prime minister as well as the hon. member for Langelier voted against this motion while the Creditistes supported it.
The hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette), leader of our party, said at that time:
We support the objectives of the motion. For many years, we have called for a $150-a-month old age pension. We are calling for a similar pension for the blind and the disabled as a basic pension for all classes of society. We are in a position to do it because production in Canada can guarantee such a pension.
This is what the leader of the Social Credit Party of Canada said on May 4, 1970 to support a motion to raise old age pensions, which was fought and rejected by the Liberal members who were then in this House.
Mr. Speaker, it can be said that only a fear of losing power, a fear of being defeated on the coming votes seems to guide this government who does not seem to have any social policy, let alone a family policy.
At least, this is what is suggested by Roger Bellefeuille, a journalist, in a study published in the Quebec Le Soleil on February 15 last.
On the subject of family allowances under the heading "The Cornerstone of a Social Policy", Mr. Bellefeuille writes:
Had the federal government officially advocated an "anti-family" policy, it could not have shown more reluctance, as has been the case since 1945, to offset more generously family expenses.
It may be argued that other so-called social measures, such as hospital insurance, medicare, the so-called free education, drug insurance for welfare recipients, help to alleviate the financial burden of families, the fact still remains that over the years, the steady increase in the cost of living has systematically eroded the purchasing power of families.
The cost of food products has increased by 52 per cent.
During that time, the federal government, with a disconcerting meanness, maintained family allowances at $6 a month for children up to 10 and $8 for those from 10 to 16.
It did not even deem it advisable to index them on the cost of living.
This was written last Thursday, a few days before the budget was brought down.
We, of the Social Credit party, find this attitude of the government shocking. We are shocked to see the present government pursue a policy likely to prove unfair to families, to reduce the birth rate, so that people, particularly in Quebec, become discouraged. And while forgetting its essential programs for family development and progress, the government seems inclined to talk even more of abortion. Such an attitude, Mr. Speaker, is somewhat shocking.
We feel that the government has missed the opportunity to give to all Canadians the economic security and social measures that they deserve.
We, of the Social Credit, have established a program; we put it to the people and, Mr. Speaker, in Quebec, where

our party is better organized than elsewhere, we have made more progress than all other parties.
Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat in the House what we propose, so that the entire population will know what policy a Creditiste government will implement when it comes into power.
Mr. Speaker, the basis of our policy is to give a chance to all Canadians to achieve self-fulfilment. And since, as far as the province of Quebec is concerned, the administration of all social measures comes de jure or de facto under provincial jurisdiction, we would obviously settle major problems by striking at their roots.
This is why we have included in our political platform, with regard to provincial rights, the following sentence: The Social Credit party of Canada will make available to all provinces the financial means they need in order to fully assume their constitutional responsibilities, without any interference from the federal government.
And further, we said: The Social Credit party of Canada believes that the present constitutional status quo, with which nobody is satisfied, must be left behind and the provinces must be given the power to be themselves, to develop and to fufil themselves, according to their needs and aspirations.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, the dilemma facing the government and the Minister of Finance comes from what? It comes from a lack of co-ordination between the different levels of government.
This is why the Social Credit party of Canada said that the provincial governments should have their say in the development of monetary policies. The exclusive control of money and its extension, credit, through the federal government, the federal government's action on currency rates, on the money supply, on prices and inflation, have a direct influence on provincial finance and local economic development possibilities.
For these reasons, the provinces should participate in the development of those policies. In co-operation with the federal government, they should be able to turn their own credit into money in the same way as they are now able to borrow money on their own credit.
Some might say, Mr. Speaker, that the federal-provincial conferences are arranged to solve this problem, but everyone knows that those conferences have only one objective: to enable the ministers involved, in this case the Minister of Finance, to tell the provincial ministers, in a paternalistic way, that such is the Federal government's decision and that they can take it or leave it.
In the field of customs and trade, the provinces are now unable to protect their industries whereas the federal government can, through its power to negotiate or set customs tariffs-as mentioned in the budget speech- impose regulations on exports and imports, and thus considerably affect provincial economies.
We feel that negotiation of custom tariffs and settlement of extensive trade agreements should be done in consultation and with assent of provincial governments.
In respect of taxation, direct taxation was reserved for a very long time to the provinces because that was their only source of revenue. By its policies elaborated during
The Budget-Mr. Matte
the war, the central government tried to withdraw from the provinces that source of revenue; at the present time, the continuous presence of the central government in the field of direct taxation results in freezing and destroying all direct taxing powers of provinces.
The increasing needs of provinces in the field of education, social security and industrial expansion require that the provinces get back their direct taxing power.
Mr. Speaker, if we let the provinces administer as they want the matters under their own juridiction, probably there would be fewer constitutional conflicts, fewer fiscal conflicts and then it would be possible to implement the social security program we commended in the course of the last electoral campaign.
Mr. Speaker, we have repeated it many times: it is essential that some day-and that day should be much closer than we think-all Canadians should be given a guaranteed vital minimum income. Our country enjoys a fantastic amount of resources and it is unthinkable that the people should not take advantage of them.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion and further to the amendment of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), I move the following subamendment:
That the amendment be amended by striking out the period and by substituting the following:
"as well as the absence of measures designed to reduce the burden of the federal public debt and to stimulate the public financing of the provinces by interest-free loans from the Bank of Canada."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder whether Your Honour would give the House an opportunity to look at the amendment and reserve our right to argue its admissibility, particularly in the absence of the House leader.


Gerald William Baldwin: I am perfectly willing to consent to that, Mr. Speaker although, on looking at the amendment I note that its wording is almost identical to that of the subamendment proposed by the same party 10 years ago and supported by the government party, including my friend, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner).


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I shall hold my remarks as to the admissibility of such an amendment if you accept the proposal of the Minister of Finance but it seems evident to us that this subamendment is in order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think there is a general disposition in the House to leave for the moment the question of the admissibility of the amendment. Perhaps, in fairness to hon. members, since the vote on it would take place at 9.45 p.m. tomorrow evening if it is found to be in order, it could be agreed that the argument on the admissibility or otherwise of the proposed subamendment would take place immediately upon the calling of this order tomorrow. Is this agreed?

February 21, 1973
The Budget-Mr. R. Guay


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is agreed and so ordered.


Mr. Raynald Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the presentation of the budget last Monday by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) seems to please most members, since it put together some realistic measures meant to improve economic prospects in 1973 for the individuals as well as for the community.
Mr. Speaker, we have endeavoured in 1972 to control inflation and unemployment, but I sincerely believe that the measures proposed in the last budget are really likely to make us reach our objectives, since they will promote the production rate and therefore employment. In addition, the budget has the great merit of enabling Canadians to benefit from higher incomes and thus increase their purchasing power. If a certain stability is maintained, especially as far as the American economy is concerned, 1973 should be a good year for the Canadian people on the whole.
But, obviously, everything is not perfect; I am sure that members of the opposition will agree with me and I should have liked to see certain questions included in this budget, for example, the question of shipyards.
I think we should tackle this problem as soon as possible because I consider that industry as essential from a defence and national economy standpoint. Our shipyards played an important role during the recent wars and one must recognize also that that industry now employs thousands of Canadians.
The last program called STAP allowed our yards to built 24 ships for foreign owners, in addition to acquiring valuable experience in the building of high-tonnage ships and developing new building methods. I think the government would be well advised to continue this program after March 31 and extend it to Canadian shipbuilders who could benefit from it, either by increasing or modernizing their present fleet. I hope the ministers concerned will take the necessary steps to ensure its continuance.
Another factor which affects the operation of our shipyards is the coastal traffic. The Darling report published in October 1970 made 15 recommendations to the government, the main purpose of which was to restrain coastal traffic in Canada to ships which displayed the Canadian flag. If they are accepted, the recommendations put forward ir: this report will have the following effect: they will give the Canadian government better control over its coastal traffic throughout Canada, enable it to derive a greater revenue from taxes on Canadian maritime transportation companies, give it a stronger authority in the Arctic waters, create more jobs for our sailors, and also encourage the operations in our shipyards thanks to the construction and repair of ships which will have to be built to meet these new needs.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the interested departments, that is the Department of Transport and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, will implement these recommendations as soon as possible. Another thing which would have a substantial effect on the activities of our shipyards would be to set up a

Canadian merchant marine. This is something which has been lacking for many years in Canada, though our country is considered among the greatest countries in the world when it comes to foreign trade. Our economy would derive many benefits from it, given the ever increasing amount of goods and commodities like grain, oil, ore, coal, wood and many others which have to be moved outside Canada. It is difficult to admit that in this area, one can see almost no Canadian ships or ships displaying the Canadian flag. This is, I suggest, a matter of national pride which is quite important.
I would like as well to draw the attention of this House to the pension plan of the CN employees. We received a report by the Committee on Transport and Communications on this. The CN pension plan was considerably improved, but I feel that the most important matter has not been settled, that is the rate of pension payed to those who retire. Since they are employees of a Crown corporation, the CN employees now want to know why they are not treated exactly in the same way as the employees of other corporations under federal government jurisdiction. I think that the request is reasonable and even if there are certain adjustments to be made concerning the 1.5 per cent less that they pay on the part of their salary that they contribute according to the pension plans, there is no reason why these employees should not be treated the same as those who work in the civil service and why they should not benefit from the 2 per cent formula. This problem concerns 80,000 railroad employees and some of them come from my riding and I believe that if a solution is not found soon, the federal government would be justified in intervening. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I wish to emphasize the fact that I have been one of the main defenders of the railroad employees before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications because I believed and I still do that this claim on their part is fair and easily justified.
Another serious problem the farmers are faced with namely feed grain, has been overlooked in the budget. I would like the government to take steps regarding the supply of feed grain as soon as possible. This is a serious problem specially in Quebec and I think it would be possible to solve it, taking into account the volume and the price of grain in Quebec which are influenced by the federal government programs and more specially by those of the Canadian Wheat Board. The Quebec farmers request nothing but fair treatment. They do not want special privileges or better treatment than the western farmers. They do not want to deprive them of anything. All they want is equal treatment.
The Quebec Department of Agriculture and Colonisation, the Cooperative federee du Quebec and the Union des producteurs agricoles du Quebec has made nine recommendations to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and to the Canadian Livestock Feed Board, the major one being as follows:
1.	That feed grain transport assistance is an integral part of the feed grain marketing system in Canada.
2.	That the price of feed grains on the interprovincial market in Canada be based on the Fair Formula, provided that all grain producers in Canada are given equal treatment.

3.	That any procedure to minimize the cost of moving Prairie feed grains to consumer areas be encouraged.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, it would be high time for the federal government to make a decison, because seed time is only a few months away.
Another suggestion is related to housing. It seems to me it is about time for our government to consider the possibility of granting a tax deduction on the building of family type houses in order to encourage Canadians to become homeowners.
Since owners of public and commercial buildings are allowed to claim, each year, a certain devaluation of their property, it would seem logical that homeowners be entitled to the same privilege as well as to a tax deduction on the maintenance costs of such houses. As for the mortgage, it could also become deductible for income tax purposes. These are measures which would stimulate the construction industry, while achieving a purpose contemplated by this government, namely to allow a growing number of families to become owners of their own houses.
To conclude, I would like to raise an important matter, while it is of regional rather than national concern. For nearly 15 years, as chairman of the Lauzon Chamber of Commerce and member of a joint committee on the Levis-Quebec City direct link, I never stopped from advocating the establishment of that link, for the economic and regional development of our area, because this superstructure is essential. Recently, more specifically on February 20, the Hon. Bernard Pinard, Quebec Minister of Highways and Transport, released the report of experts who have proved that we were right in requesting a direct link. But one problem remains: the financing of the project, for it seems that a bridge would cost somewhere between $175 and $200 million. I therefore take this opportunity to ask what the federal government participation might be to that realization which cannot be postponed much longer.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that one of the traditions of the budget debate, at least in the second round of speakers, is that members may range over a wide field in their comments; they may depart if they wish from strictly budgetary considerations and deal with matters relating to their ridings, as did the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay) who spoke just before me.
This is also my wish, Mr. Speaker, but I propose to remain within the ambit of the budget debate by directing my attention to an area of endeavour which the government has consistently overlooked but one which, if properly treated, could be gratifyingly expansionary in a sector of the economy that is both labour intensive and is related to regional development, while taking into account Canadian tradition we have too long neglected.
I regret that in the course of the remarks by the hon. member for Levis the minister who is primarily concerned with them left the chamber because I, too, plan to direct my attention to that part of the amendment which regrets the absence of incentives to Canadians to increase participation in Canadian enterprise and development and to deal with the serious burden of unemployment
The Budget-Mr. Donald Munro
which afflicts our. country. I find it curious that the first speaker from the government benches should put his emphasis on programs which the government had decided in the past and in the present budget to overlook entirely. I suggest to him that he belongs to another side of the House.
My remarks today are derived from a multiplicity of sources. I speak of one of Canada's greatest traditions, an aspect of our native competence which is threatened by negligence and may disappear. I shall examine it in the context of our present economic plight. I shall also speak of the current unemployment situation in the country and of the growing need to exercise stronger controls over pollution in our waters and on our shorelines. If time permits, I will develop my second mix of thoughts. In doing so I will be drawing on a lengthy experience in serving Canada abroad and observing Canada from abroad.
It seems to me odd and distressing but true that, from time to time, we need to remind ourselves that Canada is a maritime nation. Too easily can we forget it; too often do we forget it, to our cost. I see the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay) seems to have left. As I said, too often do we forget it, to our cost. We have been led to do so, I suggest, partly because of our continental fixation, our easy overland route north and south to markets, and partly because of Commonwealth preferences.
Two recent events, however, have shattered these illusions, namely, the restrictive trade policies introduced by President Nixon in August, 1971, and the entry of Britain into the European Common Market on January 1, 1973. The time has come, I suggest, to refocus on our maritime heritage.
In the deep sea navigable waters off the constituency of Esquimalt-Saanich, which include the Haro Straits and the Strait of Juan de Fuca-both of them running out to the international boundary-we have a special set of problems with which to deal. This is an international artery of commerce, and we want it that way. But in waters through which an international boundary runs, solutions of a particular kind are required. These solutions require the closest consultations between the national authorities who share the benefits of those waters as well as concerted action when action is needed. In a large measure, we do not have this co-ordinated approach at the present time, and it is high time we remedied that defect.
Before we can embark, however, on any bi-national program of co-ordination or undertake the international action that is required of us in our special circumstances on the west coast, we must consider a number of purely domestic concerns that deserve our attention, matters giving rise to problems that we must ourselves put right before we even think of trying to handle them in their international aspects. The first, of course, is the regulation and control of shipping of whatever registry plies our national waters.
As matters stand at present, Canada provides a variety of marine services: to cite only a few, these include lighthouse tendering, fisheries patrols, immigration controls, narcotics controls, dredging, icebreaking, happily not off my constituency, pilotage services, rescue, a sort of mini-

February 21, 1973
The Budget-Mr. Donald Munro
mum Coast Guard, and, in a very tentative sort of way, pollution control. All these services a maritime nation requires. In addition, a new duty has recently put in its appearance, the regulation and control of drilling rigs. These are appearing off the east coast, the west coast and in our northern waters. As well there are, of course, reconnaissance and search and rescue activities performed by our uniformed personnel. All these services are needed to an even greater degree than at present provided.
What is needed more is domestic co-ordination of all these services so that their provision may be supplied as, when and where required, and in the proper amount. There must be a means of overcoming overlapping jurisdictions and clashes of priorities which interfere with the provision of these services. According to the information reaching me, there is no single, co-ordinating authority in this complex area because civil and military authorities in Canada are each staking out their respective claims. Neither will let go and no superior authority, in this case a minister, is able or perhaps willing, to make a ruling and make it stick. Perhaps a statute is needed, Mr. Speaker. In the meantime, we are not providing all the services which our maritime status requires.
For example, we seem incapable of drafting and implementing regulations for the ordinary control of deep seagoing vessels of all kinds that carry all sorts of cargoes and enter our waters. We do not appear to keep records of the pattern of shipping entering our waters. This astonishes me. In the meantime, we provide many services that those ships themselves need, but provide them, perhaps, in an unco-ordinated manner. We do not require of those ships the standard of performance that we, a coastal nation with untold riches above and below the sea and on our shoreline, ought to insist on.
Let me cite examples. Such ships can enter our waters with semi-trained crews. They can enter our waters with only marginally seaworthy craft. They can travel on our waters without equipment that modern day developments ought to make mandatory. We need a full fledged coastguard to ensure that these and all other threats to our waters and shorelines are removed. In order to ensure that necessary action in this regard is taken in a coordinated fashion, I would be prepared to see our coastguard-I have already spoken about the mess of uncoordinated commands-placed under the ministry of transport for staffing and maintenance purposes but placed under the authority of the commander, maritime command for operations and tasking. This would provide satisfactory civilian careers, gratifying accomplishments and an effective service to Canada.
As of January, 1972, Canada could not boast of more than 86 vessels of all kinds operated by the Department of Transport to look after the needs of a coastline some 17,800 miles long. By contrast, the U.S. coastguard, with only 12,300 odd miles of coastline to protect, has almost 3,000 craft afloat. So, in one case 86 vessels look after almost 18,000 miles of coastline and in the other 3,000 vessels look after 12,000 odd miles of coastline. No wonder the United States coastguard is frequently called on to rescue seamen and fishermen in distress in Canadian waters. I feel ashamed that we have to go outside Canada

to obtain this kind of service. As a maritime nation, we must be prepared to carry our own weight at sea.
The establishment of a coastguard is one of my pleas, and a revived shipbuilding industry is another plea associated with it. Information reaching me causes distress, dismay and shame. One of our vessels now doing work on the west coast is due to be replaced. It is old and outmoded. According to the answer I received today, it is 20 years old and completely outmoded. The reply from the government side today indicates that the government is thinking about drawing up plans for a replacement. I have also heard that the present government is thinking of chartering out this work to a foreign vessel and foreign crew. This procedure, I understand, is already being followed either in the Great Lakes or in our Arctic. How, can we think of chartering foreign vessels to do work for Canadians in Canadian waters? Can anything be more outrageous in a maritime nation which is faced with high unemployment than going out of the country and obtaining both ships and crews that we can easily supply here? We have the capacity on both our coasts to build these vessels. On both our coasts, in our lakes and on our rivers, a Canadian coastguard such as I conceive it under a co-ordinated command could have as its supreme function regulating ships that ply our waters. They should be manned by Canadian crews and built in Canadian yards.
This brings me to another of my concerns. It is a concern of all Canadians, the pollution of Canadian waters and shorelines from accidents to ships at sea. We had such an accident on the west coast within the past month. We failed to get a full report from either the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) or the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) as to the full consequences of that accident. The pollution of Canadian waters and shorelines is becoming more susceptable to these accidents as our traffic increases and ships become larger, particularly tankers. Spills or sluicing bilges at sea or in Canadian waters is on the increase. These sorts of pollution must stop. They can be stopped only by effective policing. The most effective police for this purpose is a strong coast guard.
To bring these matters under control requires action on three different levels. We must be prepared to act in the international arena, the bi-national field and domestically we must get legislation on our statute books that will prevent Arrow disasters or Van Lean happenings as well as others that have occurred within recent memory. Above all, we must never permit a Torrey Canyon to happen on our shores or such accidents as happened just before Christmas in the Gulf of Oman, a collision and fire involving two midi-tankers. By midi-tankers, I refer to those ships of only 86,000 tons.
Canada and like-minded states should press for an international convention setting forth new seaworthiness criteria for ships and crews, criteria that will weed out hulks and thin out marginally qualified mariners, whether masters or crew. Failing that, we must at least have regulations, agreed upon with our neighbour, that will prevent inadequately inspected ships with semi-trained crews from sailing in our waters.
February 21, 1973


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the special order made previously today only allows 15 minutes per speech.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. If I understood correctly, there was also an agreement that there would not be any request for an extension of time.


Mr. Comtois:: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance is rising on a point of order.


Joseph-Roland Comtois: Mr. Speaker, as it is late, all hon. members seem to agree to call it six o'clock.
The Budget


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It was my understanding that this agreement was to be worked out and announced from the Speaker's chair. I do not believe it has until just now.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


Joseph-Roland Comtois: It is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. Hon. members have heard the Parliamentary Secretary's proposal. [English]
Is it agreed that we call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 1 o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday. February 22. 1973