1973-04-18

THE ROYAL ASSENT

['Mr. Speaker, if I may rise on a point of order, I should like to advise the House that I will be seeking consent later this day to move concurrence in the report of the commissioners.']
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received which is as follows:
Government House,
18 April, 1973
I have the honour to inform you that His Excellency the Governor General will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 18th day of April, at 5.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Andre Garneau Brigadier General
Administrative Secretary to the Governor General



Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to lay upon the table an extract from the minutes of a meeting of the Commissioners of Internal Economy, held on Tuesday, April 17, 1973, concerning telephone expenses of members of the House.


TABLING OF EXTRACT FROM MINUTES OF MEETING OF COMMISSIONERS OF INTERNAL ECONOMY CONCERNING EMPLOYEES' SALARIES
Mr. Speaker:: I also have the honour to lay upon the table an extract from the minutes of a meeting of the Commissioners of Internal Economy concerning revisions of the salaries of employees of the House of Commons.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, if I may rise on a point of order, I should like to advise the House that I will be seeking consent later this day to move concurrence in the report of the commissioners.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First Report of Standing Committee on Regional Development-Mr. Penner.
[Editor's note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, it has become increasingly apparent that the Canadian people are questioning the effectiveness of the nation's social security programs. It was this same concern that brought the government of Canada and the governments of the provinces independently to the same conclusion that a joint federal-provincial review was called for-a review which would embrace not only what each individual government is doing in the field of social security but also what the governments together are doing.
In November 1972, the provincial ministers of welfare called for a federal-provincial conference before the spring of 1973 to establish better mechanisms for consultation on social security programs. And in January 1973, in the Speech from the Throne, the government of Canada called for a joint federal-provincial review of "Canada's total social security system", beginning in April 1973.
The government of Canada has prepared a working paper as its contribution to the launching of such a review. It is not designed to present a panacea for every weakness in Canada's welfare system. Nor is it meant as a set of fixed proposals put forward by the government of Canada to parliament and the provinces, for early legislative implementation. Rather it is designed to outline the broad directions of policy which would, in the view of the government, lead to a more effective and better co-ordinated system of social security for Canadians.
We have sought, in developing our proposals, to comprehend the whole sweep of social security policy and to develop a comprehensive, logical, and hopefully imaginative approach to this field. We have sought, too, to exercise our ingenuity in finding new, and if necessary radical, federal-provincial or constitutional arrangements, in order

April 18, 1973
Social Security
to achieve the kind of integrated social security system which will best serve the needs of the Canadian people.
The framework for our thinking was set out in the five principles enunciated in the Speech from the Throne of January 4 and elaborated upon in my first speech to this House on January 11; they are here embodied in a number of propositions, in five critical strategy areas.
First of all, we are proposing an employment strategy. By removing from existing programs disincentives to seek training and employment, by improving government-provided counselling, training and placement services, and by establishing an on-going program of community employment in socially useful activities, we hope to improve the potential of Canadians who have been unemployed for an extended period of time to obtain an employment income.
Next we are proposing a social insurance strategy. To meet the contingencies of short-term unemployment and to provide for retirement, disability, and the support of survivors, we recommend the maintenance and strengthening of social insurance programs. In this regard, we advance two specific proposals in relation to the Canada Pension Plan which we would like to embody in legislation this year-subject to a provincial consensus. This involves an increase in the level of yearly maximum pensionable earning to $7,800 by 1975, and the removal of the ceiling on cost-of-living escalations of Canada Pension Plan benefits.
Thirdly, we are advancing an income supplementation strategy. We recognize that the earnings of people who are working may not always be sufficient to meet family income needs. This may be because of the size of the family-wage levels not being related to the numbers of children-or it may be because of the nature of the breadwinner's employment-it may be low paying self employment or intermittent work. To meet these problems of the "working poor", as they are often called, we are advancing two propositions.
First we are proposing a significant increase in the universal family and youth allowance benefit, from an average of $7.21 per child per month to an average of $20 per child per month. To effect a significant measure of income redistribution, we propose to make the new family allowance taxable-although I should point out that practically all Canadian families should realize a net increase over their present levels.

In the budget of February 19 we provided for an appreciable reduction of income and other taxes in order to increase the net disposable incomes of Canadian taxpayers. By this additional measure we are effecting a substantial transfer of funds to Canadian families. Such a measure will be of great benefit to people with low and middle incomes, but the greatest benefit will accrue to the working poor. This change will result in a net increase in payments to Canadian families of over $800 million in a full year.
Second, we are suggesting that where income from employment plus the higher family allowances still does not provide the family with an acceptable minimum

income, consideration should be given to a single general income supplementation program. Such a program would have the advantage not only of providing more acceptable incomes to the working poor, but also of providing them with an incentive to continue to work rather than to go on social aid.
The largest groups of people, however, who do not receive an acceptable minimum income-whether from employment or social insurance-are those who are old or disabled or otherwise not employable. And there are the large numbers of single parent families-largely widowed or separated mothers with dependent children-who choose not to seek or who are unable to find employment outside the home. We suggest that additional income supplementation should be provided to these people, thus assuring them a guaranteed income.
In the case of the aged, we propose that they enjoy an option to choose between this guaranteed income and the existing OAS/GIS system. Finally, to accommodate cases of special and emergency need, we suggest a "back-stop" program of supplementary social assistance.
To make the employment and income supplementation strategies fully effective, we advance a social and employment services strategy, based on two propositions. The first is that necessary training, counselling, placement, rehabilitation, and child care services should be extended and improved. The second is that the costs of special services in areas such as nursing home and child care should be covered under the plan for those in need of them but who are unable to meet these costs themselves.
The review of the social security system upon which we are embarking is, as I have consistently stated, a joint federal-provincial venture-both the review and ultimate implementation. It is for this reason that we are setting out propositions rather than fixed proposals, and why we have not sought to make proposals concerning jurisdictional and financial divisions of responsibility.
We have, however, a general format to suggest-a flexible and creative approach to the federal-provincial dimension. This proposed format includes major innovations in the field of federal-provincial or constitutional arrangements.
First, subject to certain national minimums, we suggest that provinces should have the power to vary the levels of allowances and income supplements paid under federal programs. Within prescribed limits, the provinces would be able to reduce the allowances paid under one federal program and transfer the savings to increase the allowances paid under another program.
Second, we suggest that, as a condition of this flexibility, there should be a framework of national norms and national minimum standards to ensure a basic equity to all Canadians affected.
Finally, we propose that the entire review be completed within two years, and that the implementation of such an approach should be regarded as a three to five-year process starting from the April conference of ministers of welfare and calling for the gradual implementation over time, within existing levels of taxation, of the approach which is agreed upon. However, early priority should be given to the adoption of legislation this year for increasing
April 18, 1973

family allowances and for those changes in the Canada Pension Plan which the provinces can agree upon. It would be our hope that the increased family allowances would come into effect in January, 1974.
It must not be thought, I should like to conclude, that the launching of a critical review such as this is a sure sign that Canada's present social security system is fundamentally unsound and in need of a total transformation, for this simply is not the case. The truth is that Canada's system is one of the most advanced in the western world and that it provides a solid foundation upon which to build in the context of today's needs. For this the present ministers of welfare are indebted to their predecessors.
It is our hope that what the government of Canada has presented in this working paper for purposes of discussion will contribute to a reasoned and sympathetic debate as to how best to provide for the security of income for all Canadians.
I need not remind hon. members that I have undertaken to have the working paper referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs where I welcome the fullest possible discussion.
We hope that this debate will not be limited to members of parliament and governments only but that voluntary organizations and the public at large will take an active part in the discussion of our proposals, as well as of any other proposals that my provincial colleagues may want to put forward.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I would like to table the Working Paper on Social Security in Canada, in both official languages.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the courtesy of members on the government backbenches as I begin my remarks. I want to say that I have had a very busy hour. I have never had so much paper thrust upon me at any time since Mr. Benson launched his white paper a good many months ago. We all know what happened to that white paper and what happened to Mr. Benson.
I am glad to have had a copy of the minister's statement and of the papers, but I must say it is difficult to deal with such a vast assemblage of words in 45 minutes. I might also say that my representative was excluded from the locked-up press briefing the minister gave, a discourtesy which I did not particularly appreciate. I also understand that across the whole of the land today there will be press conferences given by representatives of the minister in various regional offices.


Mr. Bell:: They are really milking it.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I hope there is no lack of consideration here on two grounds, namely, that those of us who speak for the opposition do in fact speak for the majority of the
Social Security
people of Canada, and also that there is no loss of the balance between those who are government officials and those who are partisan people. This is a very serious matter and I will leave it there.
Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, I welcome any move which will benefit the people of Canada, far too many of whom are living on or near the jagged edge of poverty.
In separating the concrete from the vaguely projected, I salute the substantial increase in family allowances. An improvement in this area is long overdue. As a measure of income redistribution the pressing need for revision is shown by comparison with the situation in 1945 when the allowance was established. At that time payments represented 1.45 per cent of the gross national product. In 1973 the allowance represents .5 per cent, or roughly a third of what it was in the good old days of Mackenzie King, God rest his soul. Had we just kept abreast of that amount we would have had $17.40 instead of $8 and $13 instead of $6. So the figure of $20 is not overly generous. Indeed I would repudiate anyone who would suggest that it is too much. Far from it.
I trust that the minister, although he does not quite say so, has put away that administrative monstrosity introduced in the last parliament as the FISP bill. How awkward that would have been had it come into law. We would not have had this new dawn that has been visited upon us today.
If I can speak over the chortling of the Liberal backbenchers, may I say that I think this is an important matter and not one for merriment at all. It is a matter of great concern. I said to the minister on March 1 that if he would bring in a more generous bill, one which would be less an administrative jungle than FISP, we would support it wholeheartedly and expedite its passage as much as we could, and I say so again today. We will do our best to facilitate such a measure.
In so far as I detect a genuine and general thrust toward an incentive society in the minister's statement, I cannot but agree. Indeed, if I disagreed I would be disagreeing with what my party said last October. The minister states that he has an employment strategy, and then talks of government-provided counselling and an ongoing program of community employment and socially useful activities. I read that with great care. This is an area I want to hear more about. What is this new talisman for finding work? Certainly the government has not distinguished itself up to now in the fight against unemployment. I trust that we are not at this stage dreaming up some temporary make-work programs which will give the illusion of destroying the devil of unemployment that has shadowed this country for a decade. The people of Canada deserve the opportunity to have meaningful work.
By its mishandling of the economy the government has laid far too heavy a burden on the whole welfare structure in our society, to say nothing of the terrible social costs resultant from the non-utilization of the creative capacity and ability of the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I for one want no part of any phony make-work projects which fail to challenge the Canadian
3406

April 18, 1973
Social Security
people or which will degrade them into mechanistic nonutilitarian routines described as welfare employment.
It is the right of every Canadian to have meaningful employment and it is the responsibility of government to ensure that all Canadians have permanent jobs-jobs which hold something for their future and for the future of the country. This is the kind of new deal we want; this will bring greater prosperity and opportunity than any tinkering with the welfare programs.
I agree with the proposals in reference to the Canada Pension Plan. We do need higher ceilings. I am sure that, like me, every member of this House is receiving letters from people whose payments are being diminished because of income from some other area or some other pension. That was not the intention of the Canada Pension Plan.
On an occasion like this it is always difficult to avoid that rather crude expression, "I told you so". I do not want to do that, but I am delighted that we now find enshrined in these proposals something we have always believed in, that the actual and real cost of living should be built into all these pension plans. It was a disgrace, before the shock of last October, that we had, in the face of inflation, an artificially lower increase built into our pension plans so that we were really taking it out of the old people.
For far too long in this country welfare has been a political football. I think this is one area that should transcend politics. I have no intention of seeking to win office by bribes, promises or threats to the old people of this land. I will not enter the auction room. I will not knock legislation for the sake of knocking, nor will I hesitate to commend any good move made by this minister or anyone else.
It is extremely difficult in such an expanded statement as the minister's to find precise commitments. I would have liked to know more clearly what the minister is going to do for the blind and the handicapped. I would have liked the minister to indicate that he intends to follow the example of the British parliament which has produced some splendid legislation for people who are permanently handicapped and have difficulty coping with life's basic needs.
I agree with the minister's reference to flexibility. I listened to him very carefully when he said:
We suggest that provinces should have the power to vary the levels of allowances and income supplements paid under federal programs. Within prescribed limits, the provinces would be able to reduce the allowances paid under one federal program and transfer the savings to increase the allowances paid under another program.
Oh, flexibility! Oh, conversion! I am all for it. Had this attitude prevailed months ago we would have had a more harmonious dominion-provincial relationship in this country. I commend the minister for the following paragraph in which he says that there should be a framework of national norms and national minimum standards to ensure a basic equity to all Canadians affected. We must never lose sight of the goal and aspirations so clearly set forth by the Rowell-Sirois report many years ago that Canadians in rich provinces, small provinces, Canadians in the north, in the south, all Canadians, should expect a decent standard of social services and that they need not live in a wealthy,

large province to get that basic standard. I would advise the minister not to lose sight of that paragraph. We must have national norms.
I should also like to say that we do not want the development of a welfare jungle in Canada. I should like to think that Canadians can expect a good standard, an ever-improving standard. I hope that the paper we have received today will bring forth real legislation and concrete advantages for the Canadian people, and that it will not join on the book shelves all the reports of commissions that are gathering dust in all our offices. We must wait, it seems, for further discussions, further exchanges and further points of view. I say to the minister, we cannot wait too long. Too many Canadians are having it too hard to allow for such administrative and legislative leisure. I say that in so far as these measures are helpful we will help their thrust and get them into legislation. That is a commitment from this party. But in the long run, and before too long, the country must gather together all the strands of its welfare programs. We must get something that is more unified, more efficient, more coherent and more compassionate. Even if all the aims that we can see in this paper are realized, that goal will not be achieved.
So we may have to wait for a new day, for new men with new ideas. In the meantime, however, we will make the best of what the minister has brought forward. For that I congratulate him. I want to say he almost tempted me, when he spoke about family allowances, to move away from my plan of three children and try to emulate the Minister of Justice, but I think that I will need to enter into further consultations at home before I can commit myself.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: October 30, 1972! What a difference that day made.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this is an important statement which has been given to the House by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) and we welcome it. I have already had occasion to admit that the minister is one of the few in the cabinet who has given the impression that he means business. I trust that he will not disappoint us but that he will do everything he can to see that the program forecast in this statement is implemented just as early as possible.
I am happy to underline the words the minister used when he said that our social security system in this country, for all its weaknesses, provided a solid foundation on which to build. In saying that I have in mind, in particular, the extent to which we have established universal programs. I believe that on that foundation we can build a really satisfactory and adequate system of social security.
I want also to agree with the thrust of the minister's statement, in his making it clear that a social security program has to be a co-operative effort, particularly between the federal government and the governments of the provinces.
In all the things that have been presented to us today there are just two that the minister has labelled as "to be
April 18, 1973

implemented quickly". The first has to do with the increases to be made in family allowance payments. We warmly welcome the conversion of the government back to its earlier position on universality. I well recall the castigation that we in this party took some months ago, particularly from the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), because we voted against the FISP bill on second reading in the last parliament. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that that was one of the most useful negative votes that we ever cast. Our action in seeing to it that that monstrosity was not imposed upon the Canadian people, plus the election of a minority parliament on October 30, 1972, has produced now the proposal that family allowances shall continue to be paid on a universal basis, and that those payments shall be subject to income tax, as we ourselves argued in the last session, although in vain, with the present Minister of Labour.
Times without number I have contended, as have my colleagues, that there is real virtue to the principle of universality, for, it ties us together in some sort of social unity, into some sort of community, as opposed to the divisiveness that a means test or income test always produces. That was the position we took last year. I welcome this gentleman who has moved from the back room into the cabinet and who has now presented to us the old idea improved upon, that family allowances shall be universal and that they shall be in the order of $20 per month, and that they shall be taxable in the hands of those who receive them, so that those in the higher income brackets will pay back a portion of what they receive.
While I am welcoming this increase in family allowances and this sticking with an important principle, I must also say that in our view the principle of escalation should be made to apply to family allowance payments just as we make it apply to many of our social security benefits. I know that it was argued in committee last year that a small percentage increase on a small amount is not very much; however, I believe the principle is a valid one. Just as we contend that old age security payments and others should be escalated, so we think there should be a provision for the automatic escalation of family allowance payments. I say here what I have said with respect to other benefits, namely, that that escalation must not be limited simply to enough to cope with the rising cost of living. It must be an escalation that is in line with the rising standard of living, reflected in such indices as the wage index or the increase in the gross national product.
I point out, Mr. Speaker, that raising the family allowance and making it taxable could have the effect of bringing a considerable increase in tax revenues to the provinces of this country. If family allowances become taxable and if the provinces base their taxation on a percentage of the federal tax, there could be a considerable increase in provincial revenues resulting from this program. I hope that somehow or other that is tied in with the minister's thinking on federal-provincial co-operation. I am glad to see him nodding his head up and down. I hope that the extra money the provinces will get because family allowances are to be on a universal but taxable basis will be used by them for the improvements that they wish to make in their social security programs.
Social Security
The other of the items announced by the minister which will be acted upon soon has to do with the Canada Pension Plan. I welcome the proposal to increase the maximum yearly pensionable earnings by 1975 to $7,800 a year. That means that in 1975, or within a year or two thereafter, maximum pension payable under the Canada Pension Plan can go as high as $1,950 a year. This is a good move. We welcome it and we trust that there is point to the minister's statement that this depends only on a provincial consensus. I was glad he did not say that it would require unanimity on the part of the provinces, but simply a provincial consensus. We also welcome the proposal to remove the ceiling on the annual escalation under the Canada Pension Plan, that escalation now being limited to 2 per cent. Again, Sir, although I welcome most warmly the minister's statement, I must say that it is not good enough just to remove the ceiling, the result of which will be that Canada Pension Plan benefits will only escalate by the amount of the increase in the cost of living. The fact is that wage standards go up more than the cost of living. The gross national product goes up even higher. The time has come for all of these escalation formulas to be based on the wage index or on the gross national product, not simply on the cost of living. The report on the war disability pension recommends this formula. We think it should be introduced in other schemes as well.
When the Minister of National Health and Welfare brings in legislation to remove that ceiling, in other words, to permit escalation to go at least beyond 2 per cent, I hope the same thing will be done for retired civil servants, retired RCMP personnel, retired armed forces personnel and all those who receive a pension as a result of any government pension operation.
Those are the two areas in which immediate action was promised, namely, family allowances and the Canada Pension Plan. The minister will not only have our support and co-operation, but he will have our persistent prodding to see that these things are done quickly. There is no use simply having so many words, announcements and press conferences across the country. What is needed is action.
We have already demonstrated that with a majority of members wanting this kind of a parliament to work we are able to produce more in three or four months than is sometimes produced in three or four years. We want this kind of co-operation on the part of parliament and the minister to continue. We want those things which the minister promised for immediate consideration to be dealt with without delay.
Since the other things listed are only for consideration over a period of time, I will not spend as many minutes on them. May I welcome the suggestion of flexibility for the provinces with regard to the way in which they establish social security standards for their people. The idea is good, particularly now that the provinces are more active and more concerned in this field. But, like the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), I warmly welcome the statement that there should be norms or standards that apply right across the country and that they should be set by the federal parliament, albeit after the minister has consulted with the provinces.
3408

April 18, 1973
Social Security
There is another whole area which I most warmly welcome and on which, if I could, I should like to spend more time than I am permitted. That is the idea that social security payments should not be available only to people who do not have anything, those who are unemployed, sick or old, but that there should be supplementation available to those who are sometimes called the working poor, those who are employed but who do not receive enough to meet today's cost of living or to enjoy today's standard of living.
In so far as the minister talked about a new employment strategy and a new income supplementation strategy, he has our wholehearted support. The idea of a guaranteed annual income, the right to live and to enjoy what our society can produce, is something we must establish if we are going to build on a good foundation the kind of social security system we can build. I am completely with the minister in his innovativeness and newness of ideas in this area. Again, he will receive not only our support but our persistent prodding.
I am just about through, Mr. Speaker. I accept the fact that it will take two or three or maybe even four or five years to put all of this into effect. However, that is too long a time for some of our people to endure the poverty they are now suffering. Therefore I urge the minister to do the two things he has promised immediately, namely, to bring in the changes to the Canada Pension Plan and to the Family Allowances Act right away.
I also urge the minister to do something about our senior citizens between the ages of 60 and 65 without further delay. There are several ways this can be done. The minister must not think that because the Old Age Security Act has been amended that this will do for all time. We want a further increase in old age security, and we want pensions at 60 years of age.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but I have to remind hon. members that, although this is a very important matter and we have had a very lengthy statement from the minister and very lengthy comments from hon. members, the rule is still there that comments made by members on behalf of the opposition parties ought to be brief. The remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Hillsborough were so interesting that they appeared to be brief to some hon. members, but it is still my duty to remind hon. members of the Standing Order.


Mr. Baldwin:: Stanley's speech from the throne.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I accept the suggestion that I should be brief, Mr. Speaker, but if Your Honour thinks that my remarks are that interesting, maybe I could extend them even more.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am just about at the end of my statement, Mr. Speaker. I started to say that we want action soon on family allowances and on the Canada Pension Plan. We want further improvement with regard to our senior citizens, both a lowering of eligible

age and a higher pension. We also think there should be early action for the blind and the disabled. It is a disgrace the way these people have had to wait. If these things are done soon, the minister will have won the reputation which he has already begun to establish as a man who means business. In conclusion, I simply say, even though this comes under another minister, that we also want action soon on the basic rate of the war disability pension.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to thank the minister for sending us, at the beginning of the sitting, copy of his statement. I wish all the other ministers would adopt that practice.
Mr. Speaker, the statement of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) is most agreeable to our party because it deals, among other things, with the national income and the security of the citizens. If our party has shown concern in this House for any subject in the last few years, it certainly has been for social security.
That is why I should like to have as much time as the spokesmen for the other parties to make remarks on that extremely important statement. Indeed, it does not happen very often that we are in agreement with the government on the principles it sets forth before the House.
Mr. Speaker, before going into the technical aspects of the measures announced today by the minister, I should like to point out that today's statement would not have been made by this government has it had a majority. That is real proof that a minority government is much closer to the people, that it has to give more consideration to the will of the people, and that it cannot depend solely on a majority to impose its views upon the citizens.
Mr. Speaker, on page 2 of his statement, the minister says, and I quote:
... a more effective and better coordinated system of social security ...
I agree with the minister, but we would have preferred that more orderly system of social security to have been implemented before today.
As a matter of fact, the minister's statement tells us nearly nothing, because what it is promoting is exactly what we have been advocating in our program during the last election campaign. Indeed we have said this: Social Credit will replace the present government programs on social welfare by programs on social and economic security.
Although the figures tabled in the House today by the minister are far from representing the social security requirements in Canada, they nevertheless represent in my view an important step by the government towards the establishment of a program of guaranteed annual income. In fact, we were the only party to include in our platform during the last election campaign a system of guaranteed annual income.
I also see that during the weekend in Montreal the official opposition party was urged to pass a resolution on
April 18, 1973

guaranteed annual income and apparently, according to newspaper reports, it was rejected.
We have been advocating it for a long time in this House and we are quite pleased to note that the government is beginning to pick our fine administrative and economic principles to arrive to better solutions.
Indeed, those sound programs and principles could unfortunately be spoiled or destroyed by complex red tape which the minister's statement makes us foresee. It would be very bad if the best social security programs in Canada were drawn up and if the federal government made bureaucrats responsible for administering them in such a way that their aims would be competely missed.
We do not have all the details of the implementation of the social security program that the hon. minister means to propose, which is understandable, because he says that he is going to consult the provinces and try to come to an agreement with them on the details of its implementation.
Before ending, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that it seems to me that there is more cream than cake in the minister's statement, since the minister said that the increase in Canadians' net income will be $800 million.
Incomes totalling $800 million are quite inadequate in the present economic situation if any attempt is to be made to settle the problem of a guaranteed annual income for those who need it, for Canada now needs at least $30 billion worth of purchasing power for her unsold production. If $800 million are all we have to buy a $30 billion national production, which is unsold because there is no purchasing power, I get the impression that there is a lot more cream than cake, and that the solutions that the government recommends, though very fine in their intention, will achieve very little in practice.
The minister does not say-I thought he had in his statement, for I had time to read it-where he is going to get the money for an $800 million increase in net incomes. The minister does not say he is going to get it in taxes, deficits and debts.
Mr. Speaker, when we talk of increasing purchasing power by $800 million, it is very important to know whether the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) or the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Stanbury) are not going to introduce in the next few weeks direct ou indirect taxation totalling a billion dollars or a billion and a half.
To increase the gross national incorqe, and taxes at the same time, is taking away with one hand what you are giving with the other. As far as social security in Canada is concerned, that means you have accomplished nothing, other than formulating principles to give to the House, for the minister's statement today looks pretty good; he copied some ideas from our election program, but he has not yet described the techniques that we recommended in that program.
Mr. Speaker, there is nevertheless one basic principle in today's statement about which we are pleased, namely the right of every citizen to earn a living, although we are not told if this legislation applies to all Canadians.
In fact, this is a first step in the implementation of a principle recognized by us, the individual citizen's right to live, whatever his income or his occupation. We have been
Indian Affairs
recommending it for years and the minister also recognizes it when, on page 3 of his statement, he says:
By removing from existing programs disincentives to seek training and employment, by improving placement services ...
Mr. Speaker, we know that the whole social security system of Canada is negative and disrupts initiative. That is why, for many years, we have been denouncing it in order that an individual receiving a guatanteed annual income or welfare benefits may at the same time seek employment, which could stimulate his initiative and allow him to contribute his talents.
Mr. Speaker, to close my remarks I congratulate the minister on having finally initiated application of human principles, too late, unfortunately, but better late than never. I hope that next time the minister will come up with a formula allowing full coverage of social security in Canada, for which much more than $800 million is required, And moreover, it has not been mentioned that citizens are going to be made to pay for achieving this objective.


CONCURRENCE IN EXTRACT FROM MINUTES OF MEETING OF COMMISSIONERS OF INTERNAL ECONOMY RELATING TO MEMBERS' TELEPHONE EXPENSES
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, by unanimous consent, I should like to move, seconded by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro):
That the extract of the minutes of the Commissioners of Internal Economy relating to telephone expenses, laid upon the table by Mr. Speaker this day, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as promised earlier in the House I wish now to table under Standing Order 41(2), the interim report of the Unemployment Insurance Advisory Committee.


INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the order: Motions:
April 4, 1973-Mr. Howard.
That the second report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, presented to the House on April 4, 1973, be concurred in.
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as this is the day for unanimous consent on motions, and

April 18, 1973
Unemployment Insurance
since I am sure there is a desire to clean up some business before the Easter recess, I wonder whether, by unanimous consent and without debate, this motion could be put.


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


Mr. Alexander:: Mr. Speaker, I may be out of order in view of the fact that the report by the unemployment insurance advisory committee that is to be tabled has not yet been tabled, and therefore if there is a point of privilege to be raised it may have to be raised after the paper has been duly tabled.
I have just been advised by the hon. member of the NDP who is the spokesman in terms of the rules that the document has been tabled. My point of privilege is this, and I think it is one that affects all members of the House. As far as I am concerned, the directive that went out to the advisory committee of the Unemployment Insurance Commission gave instructions in no uncertain terms to look into allegations of questionable conduct, abuses of procedure and harassment of claimants. I have not had this report too long, but as I read it it seems to me that the advisory committee has not done a job that I can find acceptable without raising a question of privilege. Let me refer the House to the second last page on which it is stated:
The committee has, therefore, completed its review of the benefit control program, based on the evidence received from the officers of the head office of the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
I would now refer to page 1 of this document. I am embarrassed inasmuch as I do not want to quibble with those who have attempted to discharge their duties, but it appears to me, and I use this phrase advisedly, an attempt is being made to perpetrate a whitewash job on this House this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: On page 1 of the report we find this statement:
The committee convened in Ottawa on March 13, 1973 and again on March 19, in Montreal to interview and examine various officials of the head office of the Unemployment Insurance Commission in order to review the procedure carried out by its benefit control branch and to touch briefly on related matters.
This whole matter came about as a result of problems that existed in the city of Toronto, but I do not see the city of Toronto mentioned in this report. The three referees in the city of Toronto were primarily the ones who made this complaint, and it is in that area where the trouble began.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Just a minute. I am speaking to a question of privilege, and I think I have a very good one because I say this is a whitewash job.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The minister stood in his place on several occasions when questions were raised in respect of

particular areas of abuse and said the committee was looking into them. When reference was made to the city of Toronto and the complaints of the three umpires there, all appointees of labour, as I recall, the minister said the committee was looking into these matters.
On another occasion there was an incident drawn to the minister's attention in respect of a storefront social agency which had indicated that benefit control officers were using language that was detrimental to the claimants. The minister is shaking his head, but I recall very distinctly what happened.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. While the hon. member is catching his breath, perhaps I might say a word or two. I have some doubt whether this is a question of privilege. The hon. member claims it is a good question of privilege. In my opinion the statement the hon. member is making to the House now is more the type of statement or comment made by hon. members following a ministerial statement being made to the House. Obviously, the hon. member is not satisfied with the contents of the document tabled by the minister. However, if there is a question of privilege the hon. member should indicate to the Chair as soon as possible in what way he thinks there is a question of privilege in order that the Chair may decide whether we ought to have a debate this afternoon on the point raised by the hon. member.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, in terms of establishing a prima facie case of privilege before this House I must be allowed to continue. My question of privilege is based on the fact that the advisory committee has not discharged its responsibilities as contained in the terms of reference, unless I have badly misread those terms of reference.
If I have the consent of the Chair, I should like to direct the attention of the House to what is stated on page 2 of this report:
The discussions and interviews were open and frank and the Chairman and his officials are to be commended for their unreserved co-operation in answering all questions and providing up to date data and statistics.
Where is there any reference to the referees in Toronto who started this whole thing?


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is what I am asking about, and those members over there can yell all they want. On page 5 of the report-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


An hon. Member:: There has been no order in this place this year.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that he is not acting in conformity with the traditions of the House. I suggest that the hon. member has a grievance, legitimate or otherwise, and is using a question of privilege as a guise under which to make a speech on a point of substance to the House. If this were a rule of the House, I suggest to the hon. member for Hamilton West and all hon.
April 18, 1973

members that that kind of complaint or grievance could be found every day and we would spend the entire time of the House considering presumed or suggested questions of privilege.
If the hon. member feels there is a question of privilege, he should make his point as quickly as possible. He has before him a document and has referred to certain pages. I understand he has now reached page 5 where there is another statement to which he takes exception. My interpretation of what he has said up to now is that he may have a complaint, but I still do not see how this can be considered a question of privilege that ought to be referred to a committee or investigated by the House, or that should be the subject of a debate this afternoon.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, you know I always abide by your rulings, but this is an extremely important matter which constitutes a question of privilege. If this were a general investigation implemented by the government I would have to sit down, and I will do so in any event if you suggest I should. But this was an investigation carried out as a result of specific terms of reference which called not only for an investigation of one side of the question but of both sides. My point in respect of this report is, Sir, that it seems to me only one side of the matter has been investigated. That is my question of privilege. I am sure hon. members would like this to be a fair report, but I must say that the report is unfair and misleading to the House. This is so because when a report is tabled and no one stands up to question it, it is immediately put out on the street and everyone thinks it is all right because the members of the advisory committee have investigated the situation. I say they have not done so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the advisory committee has not investigated the whole situation. I do not want to abuse the rules of the House. I did yesterday because I was carried away, but in this case I believe I have every right to bring this point to the attention of hon. members.
Yesterday the minister, for the first time, referred to disentitlement rather than disqualification. Hon. members apparently did not catch the drift of that. I know how it started but I will not point my finger at the hon. member who wanted it cleared up. There is a vast distinction between disentitlement and disqualification. We did not ask for an investigation in that regard; the advisory committee was not asked to make such an investigation. I suggest that is very clear.
I think I have made my point, Mr. Speaker, and I wish to thank you for the indulgence you have shown to this point. I do believe that when the government requests the advisory committee to look into allegations it should look into all the allegations, as the minister said it would. I respectfully suggest it has not done so. In view of the terms of reference, the least the advisory committee might have done was study both sides of the matter, and particularly those complaints in the city of Toronto which initiated the whole matter.
Indian Affairs


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has risen on what he considers, with respect but very strongly, to be a question of privilege. I have not been convinced that it is a question of privilege. In accordance with our practice, the minister or another member to whom the question of privilege is directed is allowed to comment. I have no objection to the minister commenting now, although I doubt that whatever he may say will change my view as to whether this is a question of privilege.
I would hope that we might try to get on with the business that is before the House, which I believe was a motion by the hon. member for Skeena. It was somehow sidetracked. The minister is seeking the floor and I will recognize him. I will then recognize the hon. member for Skeena who had the floor before this suggested or alleged question of privilege was raised. For the moment, I will recognize the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, point of order, or whatever you want to call it, I find that the most incredible, the most significant and most interesting omission in all the bombastic rhetoric we have heard, with all these quotations from this document I have just tabled, is the failure of hon. members to read the final paragraph in its entirety, although the hon. member came close to it. I quote:
The committee will now undertake the second phase of its study and concentrate its efforts on a review of the operations of the program, from the standpoint of the claimant, and examine the appeal procedures available to the claimants and other related matters. These considerations will constitute the second part of the committee's interim report of its review of the benefit control program.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the peaceful and non-controversial member for Skeena.



[Stage Direction]
On the order: Motions:
April 4, 1973-Mr. Howard.
That the second report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, presented to the House on April 4, 1973, be concurred in.
Frank Howard: With the sort of precise recognition you have just given me, Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but get unanimous consent for what I asked earlier.


Mr. Speaker:: My understanding is that the hon. member for Skeena was seeking unanimous consent for the submission of his motion for concurrence in the second report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: Absolutely no.

April 18, 1973
Income Tax Return Deadline Mr. Speaker: I feel sorry to have to report to the hon. member that there is not unanimous consent.


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty to inform the House that an objection signed by the hon. members for St. John's East, Gander-Twillingate, St. John's West, Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe, Bonavista-Trinity-Conception, Burin-Burgeo, Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador, Assiniboia, Cape Breton Highlands-Canso and Dauphin has been filed with me pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Chapter E-2, R.S.C., 1970, to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Newfoundland.
If the House agrees, I would suggest that the text of the objection be printed as an appendix to today's Votes and Proceedings. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity. In view of the fact that an extremely large number of people find it necessary to seek outside help to complete their income tax forms and that a number of firms whose business it is to prepare these returns have stated that they will not be able to complete all their customers returns by the April 30 deadline, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis):
That this House urges the government to extend the deadline for income tax returns by one month.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair would have doubts about the procedural acceptability of the motion. Hon. members know that even a motion submitted under the terms of Standing Order 43 ought to conform with the practice of the House. Again I suggest to hon. members it is perhaps easier to ascertain whether there is unanimous consent and if there should be unanimous consent then we might consider the procedural implications of the motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will have heard, as I did, that there is not unanimous consent with respect to his motion.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
It will be 58 years ago on April 24 next that 1,500,000 Armenians were the victims of a first genocide. But the treaty of Sevres, to which Canada had adhered, provided for the restitution of their lands to the Armenians, and because the purposes of this treaty have not yet been achieved, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abiti-bi (Mr. Laprise):
That the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in the preparation of the Canadian position for the United Nations convention on genocide, take into account the Armenian viewpoint to recognize the humanitarian gesture of thousands of Armenians who generously give blood to the Canadian Red Cross.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not, and the hon. member's motion cannot be put.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
[Stage Direction]
1971 TAXATION FORMS
Mr. Coates: 1.	For the taxation year 1971, how many types of forms were available for the payment of income tax to the government?
2.	Of the types of forms produced (a) what was the actual number of each ordered by the Department of National Revenue
(b)	who produced the forms in question (c) what was the cost of producing each type of form?
3.	How many types of income tax forms are available for the taxation year 1972 and (a) who produced the forms (b) in what volume (c) at what cost?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: In so far as the Department of National Revenue, Taxation, is concerned: 1. For the taxation year 1971, there were two individual income tax forms, a T1 Short and T1 General.
2.	(a) Number of T1 Shorts, including 1 Schedule, 12,593,000; Number of T1 Generals, including 5 Schedules, 3,731,000; (b) Produced by Drummond Business Forms

April 18, 1973

Ltd. (c) Cost for forms, T1 Short, $220,034.04; T1 General, $109,452.89.
3.	For the taxation year 1972, there is one individual income tax form and nine schedules for the convenience of taxpayers, as well as forms for the Ontario and Manitoba Property Tax Credit, (a) Forms were produced by; Ronald's Federated Press Limited; R. L. Crain Limited; Drummond Business Forms Limited, (b) Sets of T1 Returns, 17,218,500; Sets of Schedules, 17,218,500; Ontario and Manitoba Property Tax Credit Forms, 6,392,500; (c) Cost for forms, $336,313.52; Cost of Schedules, $623,325.50; Cost of Ontario and Manitoba Property Tax Credit Forms, $26,000.00.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Unemployment Insurance Commission on publicity and/or information in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72?
2.	What were the names and addresses of firms or individuals who received these contracts, what amounts of money were spent in each case and what was the purpose of each contract?
3.	What contracts for publicity and/or information were awarded in the current fiscal year, what are the names and addresses of contractees, what are the amounts of money involved in each case and what is the purpose of each contract?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. 1968-69, $185,061; 1969-70, $246,458; 197071, $107,125; *1 April 1971 to 31 December 1971, $737,339; 1972, $142,872.
*The Unemployment Insurance Commission started working on a calendar year basis effective 1 January, 1972.
2.	Unemployment Insurance Commission publicity and/or information is carried by the individual newspapers, radio and television stations.Information has been provided with regard to the major contracts let in the period requested, as well as the gross amounts spent on newspaper, radio and television advertising. Additional staff would have to be hired to conduct the research required to obtain the additional information. Inordinate costs and length of time would be incurred in completing this work. 1968-69: Newspapers etc., $185,061; 1969-70: Newspapers etc., $37,775; Goodis, Goldberg, Soren Ltd., 23 Prinie Andrew Place, Don Mills, Ontario, $208,683 (National Anti-Fraud Campaign); 1970-71: Newspapers etc., $107,125; April 1, 1971 to December 1971: Newspapers etc., $159,539; Goodis Goldberg, Soren Ltd., 23 Prinie Andrew Place, Don Mills, Ontario, $562,800 (Introduction of the new UIC Act); John Doherty & Co., 46 Elgin St., Ottawa, Ontario, $15,000 (Transitional period of new UIC Act).
3.	1972 Unemployment Insurance Commission publicity and/or information is carried by the individual newspapers, radio and television stations. Information has been provided with regard to the major contracts let in the period requested, as well as the gross amounts spent on newspaper, radio and television advertising. Additional staff would have to be hired to conduct the research required to obtain the additional information. Inordinate costs and length of time would be incurred in completing
Order Paper Questions
this work. Newspapers etc., $88,563; John Doherty & Co., 46 Elgin St., Ottawa, Ontario, $54,309 (Social Insurance Number, Claimants Assistance Program & Separation Certificate Information).


Mr. Hueglin: Is there any data collected on crimes committed by individuals under the influence of drugs other than alcohol and, if so, in each of the past five years (a) what were the number of crimes committed (b) what was the nature of the crimes committed (c) how many instances were there of each in Part (b)?


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as Statistics Canada is concerned: The information requested in this question is not collected by Statistics Canada.


Mr. Fortin: How many government departments, agencies or Crown corporations are working in the field of study and/or control of pollution, use, and disposal of freshwaters in Canada, such as rivers and lakes?


Mr. William Rompkey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Several departments, Crown corporations and agencies have varying degrees of responsibility in the field of water, as follows: Department of Agriculture, Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, Department of Environment, Department of Health and Welfare, Department of Public Works, Department of Regional Economic Expansion, Department of External Affairs, Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of National Defence, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, International Joint Commission (some 25 of the various international boards and commissions are concerned with water), National Capital Commission, National Energy Board, National Research Council of Canada, Ministry of Transport, Ministry of State for Urban Affairs, Ministry of State for Science and Technology, Northern Canada Power Commission, National Energy Board, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Department of Finance, The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, Northern Transportation Company, Science Council of Canada, Statistics Canada.


Mr. Stackhouse: How many inmates of federal penal institutions were allowed to be temporarily absent on a regular basis in 1972 and of these, how many had been (a) parole violators (b) convicted of (i) murder (ii) manslaughter (iii) armed robbery?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Three hundred and seventy three; (a) 68; (b) (i) 31, (ii) 17, (iii) 27. N.B. The Canadian Penitentiary Service Computer System at present does not provide for the retrieval of statistical data on inmates allowed to be temporarily absent on a regular basis. However, a survey of inmates allowed tern-

April 18, 1973
Order Paper Questions
porary absence privileges on a regular basis had previously been conducted and the above figures reflect the results of that survey, as of November 30, 1973.


Mr. Lawrence: 1.	What persons, companies or organizations, resident or located in the County of Northumberland, in the Province of Ontario, received financial assistance from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in (a) 1972 (b) 1971?
2.	What were their addresses?
3.	What amounts, in each year, were paid to each?


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Parliamentary Secretary to. Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. Under the Canada-Ontario Rural Development Agreement 1970-75, the following companies located in the County of Northumberland received financial assistance from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, for expanding their plant facilities: (a) Quinte Fruit Growers Limited, (b) Big A Brand Fruit Farms Limited, (c) Produce Processors Limited. The Capital Grants for Farm Development and the Farm Enlargement and Land Consolidation programs, which were jointly approved under this agreement for implementation by Ontario across a wide provincial area, also benefited residents of the County during 1971 and 1972, but details are not available to the Department.
2.	(a) P.O. Box 187, Trenton, Ontario, (b) R.R. 3, Col-borne, Ontario, (c) P.O. Box 100, R.R. 1, Trenton, Ontario.
3.	(a) in 1971, nil, in 1972 $75,000; (b) in 1971, nil, in 1972, $17,500; (c) in 1971, nil, in 1972 $111,592.48.


Mr. Lawrence: 1.	What persons, companies or organizations, resident or located in the County of Durham, in the Province of Ontario, received financial assistance from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in (a) 1972 (b) 1971?
2.	What were their addresses?
3.	What amounts, in each year, were paid to each?


Marcel Prud'homme: 1. The Capital Grants for Farm Development program, approved under the Canada-Ontario Rural Development Agreement 1970-75 for implementation by Ontario across a wide provincial area, benefited some residents of the County during 1971 and 1972, but details are not available to the Department.
2.	N/A.
3.	N/A.


Mr. Knight: 1.	How many full-time employees were there as of January 31, 1970 in the Department of Finance?
[Mr. Allmand.J
2.	How many of those employees were earning more than $15,000 annually, distributed according to $1,000 intervals?
3.	How many full-time employees were there as of January 31, 1973 in the Department of Finance?
4.	How many of those employees were earning more than $18,000 annually, distributed according to $1,000 intervals?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: 1.	376.
2.	$15,000 to $15,999, 7; $16,000 to $16,999, 9; $17,000 to $17,999, 5; $18,000 to $18,999, 5; $19,000 to $19,999, 7; $20,000 to $20,999, 7; $21,000 to $21,999, 8; $22,000 to $22,999, 12; $23,000 to $23,999, 1; $20,000 to $25,000, *SX 1, 2; $22,000 to $27,000, *SX 2, 8; $24,000 to $30,000, *SX 3, 2; $29,000 to $35,000, *SX 4, 2; $40,000 to $45,000, *DM 3, 1.
3.	548.
4.	$18,000 to $18,999, 22; $19,000 to $19,999, 6; $20,000 to $20,999, 10; $21,000 to $21,999, 7; $22,000 to $22,999, 4; $23,000 to $23,999, 9; $24,000 to $24,999, 8; $25,000 to $25,999, 15; $26,000 to $26,999, 3; $22,000 to $28,000, *SX 1, 2; $25,000 to $31,000 *SX 2, 15; $28,000 to $35,000, *SX 3, 2; $34,000 to $40,000, *SX 4, 3; $45,000 to $50,000, *DM 3, 1.
*Not separated to $1,000 intervals in order to protect privacy of salary information in accordance with T.B. Circular No. 1969-206.


Mr. Athey: 1.	Is the Department of Public Works considering the acquisition of land in Lucerne, Quebec, presently used by the Department of Agriculture for animal research?
2.	(a) For what purpose (b) for what government department or agency is the Department considering the acquisition of the land?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: 1.
Yes.
2.	(a) Environmental Research purposes; (b) Department of the Environment.


Mr. Coates: By province, how much money has Atomic Energy of Canada Limited spent on power plants and heavy water plants, including
(a)	the total capital expense (b) the total operating expense (c) all other expenses, including research (d) the amount forgiven and amount not recoverable?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has spent or committed the following amounts on power plants and heavy water plants by provinces. (Expressed in $ Millions): (a) Total capital expense: Ontario, $401.6; Quebec, $90.2; Nova Scotia $95.0. (b) Estimated annual operating expense: Ontario, $62.9; Quebec, $7.2; Nova Scotia, $20.0. The annual operating expense of heavy water plants and commercial power plants is recoverable from the sale of product or electricity, (c) All other expenses including research: Ontario, $19.9; Quebec, $30.3; Nova Scotia, nil. The above amounts represent the cost of devel-
April 18, 1973

opment and design of prototype power plants, (d) The amount forgiven and amount not recoverable. The prototype power stations in Ontario and Quebec will eventually be sold to the utilities at prices that will enable the utilities to produce electricity at costs comparable to the cost of producing it in coal-fired stations of similar capacity. The amount forgiven and amount not recoverable will not be known until the stations are sold.


Mr. Rowland: 1.	How many CF 5 aircraft (a) have been purchased by the government (b) are currently in (i) service (ii) storage?
2.	How many CF 5 aircraft (a) in service (b) in storage are in dual configuration and how many in single configuration?
3.	How many CF 5 aircraft have been sold to other nations, what nations have purchased them and in what numbers?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Department of Supply and Services, the Canadian Commercial Corporation and the Department of National Defence as follows: 1. (a) 135; (b) (i) 46; (ii) 45.
2.	(a) 30 CF 5A (Singles); 16 CF 5D (Duals); (b) 38 CF 5A, 7 CF 5D.
3.	Twenty aircrafts were sold to Venezuela.


Mr. Godin: 1.	What is the total number of members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?
2.	How many of them come from (a) the Province of Quebec (b) Ontario?
3.	How many of them are on duty in (a) the Province of Quebec
(b)	Ontario?


William Warren Allmand: 1.	12,059.
2.	No records are available to readily establish this information. To obtain same it would be necessary to conduct a check of every member's file which would represent an exorbitant task in terms of manpower and time.
3.	(a) 912; (b) (i) 1,201, assigned to federal duties in Ontario; (ii) 1,824, assigned to headquarters and other components for duties and functions relating to the whole of Canada.


Mr. Schumacher: 1969	1970
Number of
Applicants Paid	-	2
Amount of Payments -	$157,9
Order Paper Questions
1.	Is it the intention of the Postmaster General to remove completely the picture of Her Majesty the Queen from our 1 cent-8 cent definitive postage stamps and, if so, what is the reason for such change?
2.	With what is it intended to replace Her Majesty's picture?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part one is no.
The answer to part two is as follows: The new series of definitive postage stamp designs, which were introduced in 1972 in the high and medium values, will be completed later this year with the introduction of new designs for the low value definitive stamps. The new designs will include a portrait of Her Majesty the Queen and former Prime Ministers of Canada.


Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	What was the cost of the new Customs Office in Goodlands, Manitoba?
2.	Was the building put out to tender and, if so (a) how many tenders were received (b) what was the tender in each case (c) who was the successful tenderer?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: 1.
A new Customs building in Goodlands, Manitoba, has not been constructed.
2. N/A.


Mr. Horner (Crowfoot): 1.	In the years 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972, how many grants under DREE were paid out to assist industry in the production of camper trailers and mobile homes?
2.	What was the total amount of money provided?
3.	How much money did private industry have to put up in order to receive the grants?


Marcel Prud'homme: 1. Statistics have not been maintained by industry classification for the Area Development Incentives Act and payment detail is, therefore, not readily available. The following, however, is the applicable information for the Regional Development Incentives Act.
Calendar Years
1971	1972	1973 (to Feb. 28)14	9	4$1,176,332	$771,673	$238,353
These figures include initial or interim payments made to 25 applicants. In addition to these cases, however, there are 23 projects for which incentive offers have been
accepted although no payment has yet been made.
2. As shown in the response to question 1, the total amount paid out is $2,344,310. The Department's total

April 18, 1973
Order Paper Questions
estimated commitment in the full 48 cases, however, is $5,741,594. The projects are expected to create an estimated 2,644 jobs.
3. Private industry put up or arranged for the financing of the balance of capital requirements. Based on the total incentive offers accepted (48) there could be at least $33,832,883 calculated as follows:
Eligible capital costs (fixed assets) Grants
Working and other capital Balance of capital requirements


[Stage Direction]
who ostensibly remained on the active files during the summer, approximately two-thirds had found jobs on their own. In addition, some 25 per cent of those who found jobs on their own said that their contact with a Canada Manpower Centre had materially assisted them to do so. Although high school and university student registrations are not broken down separately, a post-secondary survey of summer employment experience, also carried out in the fall of 1972, indicates that 91 per cent of the post-secondary students who sought work in 1972 succeeded in finding a job for at least part of the summer. This figure of course includes those post-secondary students who were placed in employment by Canada Manpower Centres.
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What number of high school and university students were registered with Canada Manpower Officers for summer employment in the months of May, June, July and August, for the year 1972?
2.	Of this number, how many were placed for employment and how many was the Department unable to place for employment in each of the above months?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. This question cannot be answered from available statistical data.
2. Placements on a cumulative basis for the months in question were: 43,177, 90,216, 141,933, 174,709; the percentage increases from the corresponding months of 1971 being: 42.9 per cent, 20.5 per cent, 28.5 per cent, 23.7 per cent. As active registrations cannot be broken down month by month, the latter part of question 2 cannot be answered. However, in addition to providing special placement facilities for students during the summer, my department encourages the students to use their own initiatives to secure employment. The results of a survey carried out in the fall of 1972 indicate that of the students
(a)	Gross National Product ($ millions)	
62,981(b)	National Income ($ millions)	
47,130(c)	Personal Disposable Income ($ millions)	
40,660(d)	Gross National Product (per capita)	
$ 3,147


Mr. Howard: With respect to the ship building program planned for Fisheries and Marine Service as announced by the Minister of the Environment on February 22, 1973, are any of the ships under that program to be built in British Columbia and, if so, which ones?


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is as follows: In awarding contracts for shipbuilding, efforts are always made to obtain them at the lowest possible cost. It has been the practice of the government nevertheless, if possible, to buy the vessels in the area where they are to be used.


Mr. Madill: What was the (a) Gross National Product (b) National Income
(c)	Disposable Income (d) Gross National Product per capita for Canada from March 31, 1967 and each fiscal year up to March 31, 1972?


Herb Breau: Statistics Canada reports that:
Fiscal years ended March 31
1968	1969	1970	1971	197267,531	74,470	81,285	86,606	95,40950,631	56,225	61,653	64,944	72,68943,667	47,954	51,883	54,743	61,2563,314	3,597	3,871	4,067	4,423
Source of data: The estimates of Gross National Product, National Income and Personal Disposable Income have been derived by summing the calendar quarterly estimates, unadjusted for seasonality, to a fiscal year total. The population estimates used to derive per capita Gross National Product are the estimates as of June 1 of the calendar year ending in the fiscal year.


Mr. Knight: 1.	How many full-time employees were there as of January 31, 1970 in the Department of the Solicitor General?
2.	How many of those employees were earning more than $15,000 annually, distributed according to $1,000 intervals?
3.	How many full-time employees were there as of January 31, 1973 in the Department of the Solicitor General?
4.	How many of those employees were earning more than $18,000 annually, distributed according to $1,000 intervals?


William Warren Allmand: 1.
Departmental Administration	 45
Royal Canadian Mounted Police	 11,682
Canadian Penitentiary Service	 4,611
National Parole Board and Service	 282
Total	 16,620

April 18, 1973

Order Paper Questions
2.	Depart-	4.	Secretariat	RCMP	CPS	NPB	Totalsmental Adminis-	18,000-18,999...	.. 2	138	13	0	153tration	RCMP	CPS	NPB/S	Totals	19,000-19,999...	.. 6	15	10	1	3220,000-20,999...	.. 0	4	1	1	615,000-15,999....	. 2	126	25	3	156	21,000-21,999...	.. 0	56	12	0	6816,000-16,999....	. 1	6	9	1	17	22,000-22,999...	.. 0	0	4	3	717,000-17,999...	. 4	0	7	1	12	23,000-23,999...	.. 2	26	8	0	3618,000-18,999....	.. 2	46	15	2	65	24,000-24,999...	.. 2	1	2	0	519,000-19,999...	. 1	3	9	0	13	25,000-25,999...	.. 4	1	4	1	1020,000-20,999...	.. 0	0	6	0	6	26,000-26,999...	.. 0	0	2	7	921,000-21,999...	.. 0	15	10	0	25	27,000-27,999...	.. 1	15	1	1	1822,000-22,999...	.. 0	1	4	8	13	Over 28,000....	.. 3	5	17	1	2623,000-23,999...	.. 0	0	4	1	5	24,000-24,999...	.. 0	11	9	0	20	Totals	.. 20	261	74	15	37025,000-25,999...	.. 0	1	4	0	5	26,000-26,999...	.. 0	0	1	0	1	27,000-27,999...	.. 0	0	0	1	1	Over 28,000.. ..	.. 1	4	3	0	8	DEFENCE INDUSTRY PRODUCTIVITY PROGRAM	Totals	11	213	106	17	347	Question No. 1,535-Mr. McKenzie:	
3.
Ministry Secretariat	
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Canadian Penitentiary Service.. National Parole Board	
Total	
14,280
5,199
20,089
1.	In the fiscal years 1968-69 to 1971-72, how much money was contracted to each of the five regions of Canada by the Defence Industry Productivity Program?
2.	What was this in per capita terms for each region?


Herb Breau: 1.
Defence Industry Productivity funds expended in Canadian industry in the six regions of Canada

Atlantic	Quebec	Ontario	Prairies	British Columbia	Yukon and N.W.T.S	S	S	$	$	$
1968/69
1969/70
1970/71
1971/72
169,046	17,
8,034	17,
193,622	20,
1,297,344	22,
424,806 10,523, 687,015 29,966, 274,767 23,670, 172,305 24,398,
651	1,469,164
833	793,959
181	1,047,341
157	674,005
43,161
257,855
2.	Defence Industry Productivity Assistance to Canadian Industry in the six regions of Canada on a per capita basis*
(Expressed in	Dollars)	British	Yukon andFY	Atlantic	Quebec	Ontario	Prairies	Columbia	N.W.T.*	$	*	$	$	$1968/69	
.08	2.9	1.5	.4	-1969/70	
.003	3.0	4.0	.2	.02	-1970/71	
.1	3.4	3.1	.3	-	-1971/72	
.6	3.7	3.2	.2	.1	-
*Note: In determining the per capita figures per region the following population statistics were used.
British	Yukon and
Year	Atlantic	Quebec	Ontario	Prairies	Columbia	N.W.T.
(Population in thousands)
1968	
2,008	5,928	7,262	3,455	2,003	451969	
2,012	5,984	7,454	3,499	2,067	471970	
2,018	6,013	7,637	3,523	2,137	491971	
2,058	6,028	7,703	3,542	2,185	53


Mr. Godin: For each of the months of October, November, December, 1972 and January, 1973 (a) how many residents in the constituency of Portneuf were registered at the Unemployment Insurance Commission (b) for the same months, how many were accepted (c) how many received benefits?


Robert Knight Andras: The Commission does not collect information of the nature requested on a constituency basis.


Mr. Knight: 1.	How many full-time employees were there as of January 31, 1970 in the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs?
2.	How many of those employees were earning more than $15,000 annually, distributed according to $1,000 intervals?
3.	How many full-time employees were there as of January 31, 1973 in the Ministry fo State for Urban Affairs?
3418

April 18, 1973
Order Paper Questions
4.	How many of those employees were earning more than $18,000 annually, distributed according to $1,000 intervals?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: 1. Nil. The Ministry of State for Urban Affairs did not exist at this time.
2.	Nil. The Ministry of State for Urban Affairs did not exist at this time.
3.	As of January 31, 1973 there were 142 full-time employees in the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs.
4.	Out of these 142 full-time employees, 27 were earning over $18,000 annually. The figures are: 1 earning between $18,000 to $18,999; 2 earning between $19,000 to $19,999; 4 earning between $20,000 to $20,999; 2 earning between $22,000 to $22,999; 6 earning between $23,000 to $23,999; 2 earning between $24,000 to $24,999; 4 earning between $25,000 to $25,999; 1 earning between $26,000 to $26,999; 2 earning between $27,000 to $27,999; 2 SX3 earning between $28,000 to $35,000; 1 DM1 earning between $34,000 to $40,000.


Mr. Caouette (Charlevoix): 1.	At how many airports does the RCMP serve as the police force?
2.	Which airports are they?
3.	How many officers are involved in such duties?
4.	What is the cost of this service?
5.	Who pays such cost?


William Warren Allmand: 1, 2 and 3. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police has units located at the following airports, with responsibilities and the number of members as indicated: RCMP has Primary Police Jurisdiction, including Security of Airport Property; Gander, Nfld., 2; Halifax, N.S., 7; Edmonton, Alta., 2; Vancouver, B.C., 12; Total 23. RCMP has responsibility only for Security of Airport Property: Montreal (Dorval), P.Q. 40; Ottawa, Ont. 9; Toronto (Malton), Ont. 36; Winnipeg, Man. 2; Calgary, Alta. 3; Total 90.
4.	$1,212,262; April 1972 to February 28, 1973.
5.	Department of Transport.


Mr. Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay): Does the Industrial Development Bank provide a consultation service when no loan is given?


John Napier Turner: In the course of considering an approach for financing and in processing a loan application, the experience and skills of the IDB staff are available to the potential borrower who often avails himself thereof. Thus, even when an application is declined the IDB may have been of some assistance. Not infrequently the IDB is able to suggest how a weakness in a loan proposal may be overcome. In a more general context, the IDB in 1972 established an Advisory Services program to help promote good management practices in small business. To this end it is holding business management seminars in smaller centres across Canada

and will have conducted about 120 by June. It has also distributed free about 100,000 informational pamphlets entitled "Minding Your Own Business" dealing with subjects of concern to the small businessman.


Mr. Paproski: 1.	What quota has been set by the government for the current seal hunt off Labrador and how many of these are baby seals?
2.	What quota was recommended by the Minister of the Environment's Advisory Committee on Sealing?


Bill Rompkey: 1. Canadian Large Vessels Operating on Front, 60,000; Atlantic Landsmen sealers, 30,000; Aboriginal fishery, 10,000; Total 100,000. In setting quotas, no distinction is made between adult and baby seals.
2. Same as above.


Mr. Knight: 1.	How many full-time employees were there as of January 31, 1970 in the Department of Manpower and Immigration?
2.	How many of those employees were earning more than $15,000 annually, distributed according to $1,000 intervals?
3.	How many full-time employees were there as of January 31, 1973 in the Department of Manpower and Immigration?
4.	How many of those employees were earning more than $18,000 annually, distributed according to $1,000 intervals?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. 8,691.
2.	Records were not kept of this information at the time.
3.	9,555.
4.	$18,000 to $18,999, 42; $19,000 to $19,999, 28; $20,000 to $20,999, 31; $21,000 to $21,999, 56; $22,000 to $22,999, 16; $23,000 to $23,999, 27; $24,000 to $24,999, 5; $25,000 to $25,999, 23; $26,000 to $26,999, 10; $27,000 to $27,999, 7; $28,000 to $28,999, 2; $29,000 to $29,999, 3; $25,000 to $31,000, 2(SX2); $28,000 to $35,000, 5(SX3); $40,000 to $45,000, 1(DM2).


Mr. Reynolds: Has the government received objections concerning the Vancouver International Airport expropriation proceedings conducted by Mr. I. Wolfe and, if so, how many?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: To
date no objections concerning the Vancouver International Airport expropriation proceedings conducted by Mr. I. Wolfe have been received by the Department of Public Works.
April 18, 1973


Mr. Benjamin: 1.	How much money was expended during 1972 by the National Parks and Historic Sites Branch of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in each of the ten provinces on (a) capital development (Including restoration) (b) operating and maintenance?
2.	How much was spent on the following National Historic Sites in Saskatchewan, in capital development and operating and maintenance during 1972 (a) Battlefords (b) Batoche (c) Fort Walsh?
3.	How much was spent on the restoration of the Fortress of Louisburg during the period 1962-1972 inclusive?
4.	(a) How much money has been requested for capital development and operating and maintenance at Fort Walsh National Historic Site during 1973 (b) what development is planned for 1974, the centennial year of this Fort?


Mr. Lien Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1.
	(a)	(b)
	$	$
Newfoundland	1,194,000	874,000Prince Edward Island	567,000	677,000Nova Scotia	2,588,000	4,252,000New Brunswick	2,096,000	926,000Quebec	6,423,000	3,041,000Ontario	4,927,000	10,291,000Manitoba	395,000	1,373,000Saskatchewan	381,000	1,015,000Alberta	3,728,000	9,435,000British Columbia	2,345,000	3,488,0002.	(a) $94,000; (b) $44,000; (c) $65,000.3.	$15,639,0004.	(a) $199,000; (b) Fort Walsh is one of the first north west mounted Police posts in Canada and is built on the site of the Cypress Hills massacre in 1873. commencing in the fiscal year 1973-74 the site is to be developed into a major centre depicting the theme of establishing law and order in the west.


Mr. Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay): 1.	Does EMO provide ambulance service to municipalities and, if so (a) in what locations (b) what is the cost of the service to EMO?
2.	What is the value of the buildings and/or equipment and/or other benefits received by EMO from municipalities where this ambulance service is provided?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: 1. No. (a) and (b) not applicable.
2. Not applicable.
Order Paper Questions


^Mr. Mather: 1.	What is the estimated per capital disposable average income of farm people, from all sources, farm and non-farm?
2.	What is the per capital disposable average income of people living off (i.e. away) from the farm?


Herb Breau: 1. and 2. In so far as
Statistics Canada is concerned: The information required to answer this question is not collected by Statistics Canada.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	How much money has been paid by the government, before any deductions at source, in the nature of salary, honorarium or retainers to Rev. Gervis Black between October 30, 1972 and up to and including March 31, 1973?
2.	Has any money been paid to Rev. Gervis Black as an expense allowance of any kind whatsoever and if so (a) what is the total amount of such expenses paid (b) what is the exact description of each expense and the amount involved in each case?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: 1. The
Rev. Gervis Black received a salary from January 4, 1973 to March 31, 1973, based on an annual salary of $15,000 to $17,500.
2. No.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	How much money has been paid by the government, before any deductions at source, in the nature of salary! honorarium or retainers to Dr. Terry McGrath between October 30, 1972 and up to and including March 31, 1973?
2.	Has any money been paid to Dr. Terry McGrath as an expense allowance of any kind whatsoever and, if so (a) what is the total amount of such expenses paid (b) what is the exact description of each expense and the amount involved in each case?


William Warren Allmand: 1. Dr. Terry McGrath received a salary from October 30, 1972 to March 31, 1973 based on an annual salary scale of $15,000 to $17,500.
2. (a) $859.90; (b) (i) Travel expenses $204.45; (ii) Removal expenses $655.45.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	How many Boeing 707 aircraft are owned by the government and on what dates were these purchased and for how much in each case?
2.	What is the total number of all flights made by each aircraft since it was placed in service and on which passengers were carried and where did these flights originate, where did they stop en route and where did they terminate?
3.	What were the names of all passengers carried on such flights and what were their destinations?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. Five; four of these were delivered in 1970, one
3420

April 18, 1973
Order Paper Questions
each on February 18, February 25, March 2, and March 10 at a flyaway cost of $8,775,000 each. The fifth was delivered on March 23, 1971 and cost $8,871,000. All of these costs were exclusive of 12 per cent sales tax, but included conversion compartments, $385,000 worth of spares and 400 hours of flight simulator time. When all aspects of the acquisition were completed, the total program costs were $64,900,000.
2 and 3. These aircraft were purchased to meet the Department of National Defence's need for deployment and support of Canada's military forces in fulfilment of defence and foreign policy commitments. No recapitulation of flight details or passenger lists are maintained on a continuing basis although flight documents and passenger manifests are kept for one year. To provide an accurate answer to these questions would require additional staff to undertake the large amount of work which would be required to compile the requested information. The Department does not have the resources that would be required to employ such additional staff.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	Has the Canada Development Corporation invested money in Ventures West Capital Limited and, if so, what is the amount of the investment?
2.	What is the value of all holdings of Ventures West Capital Limited and what is the nature of the holdings?
3.	What is the minimum investment required to purchase shares in Ventures West Capital Limited?
4.	Is Ventures West Capital Limited a public company?
5.	What is the total amount in management fees paid to the Vancouver-based firm of Brown, Farris and Jefferson Limited to date and what are their contractual arrangements with Ventures West Capital Limited?
6.	Was the firm of Brown, Farris and Jefferson selected by representatives of the Canada Development Corporation as management consultants for Ventures West Capital Limited?


John Napier Turner: 1. Yes, $2,050,000.
2.	Ventures West Capital Limited is a private company. This information has not been made public by the company and consequently it is not available.
3.	Same as 2.
4.	No.
5.	Same as 2.
6.	Yes.


Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	When was the London Building in Saskatoon purchased by the government and at what price?
2.	What has been the total amount of expenditure since for (a) renovation and rebuilding (b) repairs?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: 1.	1950 for $130,000.
2. (a) $507,765; (b) Estimated at $2,500 per annum.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	In view of the plans announced by the Minister of the Environment to build an Oceanographic Research Institute on the shores of Patricia Bay, in the Municipality of North Saanich in British Columbia, what arrangements have been made with the municipal authorities to provide the necessary municipal services (water, power, sewage, roadways, etc.) associated with such a project?
2.	If no arrangements have yet been made, on what date is it planned to open discussions with the municipal authorities with the view of ensuring that those services will be provided?


Bill Rompkey: 1. Preliminary contacts regarding municipal services for the ocean institute at Patricia Bay have been made with the Capital Regional District, Victoria. A meeting of departmental officials and all municipalities involved is being arranged.
2. This should take place by mid-April. It is the intention and policy of the Department to plan the institute with the closest co-operation of the municipalities in the region. Such discussions and plans will include the total federal activity at Patricia Bay including Victoria International Airport and the Department of National Defence.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): Does the Minister of the Environment plan to have his Department assume all the costs for the installation of the services that will be required to establish the Oceanographic Research Institute at Patricia Bay in the Municipality of North Saanich, British Columbia?


Bill Rompkey: The Department will negotiate in good faith for the provision of services to the institute with the municipalities involved.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): What plans has the Minister of the Environment made to defray the extra costs that will arise in matters of housing, schooling, fire and police protection as a result of the establishment of the Oceanographic Research Station in Patricia Bay in the Municipality of North Saanich, British Columbia?


Bill Rompkey: A grant in lieu of taxes will be negotiated in the normal manner.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): In view of the plans to establish an Oceanographic Institute at Patricia Bay in the Municipality of North Saanich, British Columbia, what expropriation plans may be envisaged by the department concerned?


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, the answer
April 18, 1973

to this question is that the Department of the Environment does not envisage any expropriation action.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): For what reason has there been no direct interchange with the Municipality ol North Saanich, British Columbia, related to the plans to establish an Oceanographic Research Institute in that municipality?


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is that a full exchange with the municipalities, as stated in question 1803, is being set up. Planning for the institute is in the very earliest stage.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): What department should the municipal authorities contact in order to work out appropriate arrangements between the federal and the municipal authorities that will have to be made as a result of the decision of the Department of the Environment to establish an Oceanographic Research Institute at Patricia Bay in the Municipality of North Saanich, British Columbia?


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is that the municipalities and the capital regional district will be dealing with the fisheries and marine service, marine sciences directorate of the Department of the Environment, at 1230, Government Street, Victoria.


Mr. Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay): 1.	What was the total amount spent for NewStart Programs in 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972?
2.	How many projects were there under the NewStart Program and where was each located?


Marcel Prud'homme: 1. The total amount spent for NewStart programs for the following years was: 1969 to 1970, $6,085,000; 1970 to 1971, $5,643,000; 1971 to 1972, $3,435,000; 1972 to 1973, $1,800,000 (Estimate).
2. There were six projects under the Canada NewStart Program. These were located in Yarmouth, Nova Scotia; Montague, Prince Edward Island; Richibucto, New Brunswick; the Pas, Manitoba; Prince Albert, Saskatchewan; and Lac La Biche, Alberta.


Mr. McKinnon: In March 1963, how many members of the Canadian Armed Forces were serving at (a) Goose Bay (b) Fort Churchill (c)
Order Paper Questions
Cambridge Bay (d) Whitehorse (e) Cold Lake (f) Yellowknife, NWT?


James Armstrong Richardson: (a) 463; (b) 675; (c) 5; (d) 596; (e) 1,893; (f) nil.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	What lawyer or law firm acts as legal counsel for the Industrial Development Bank in Victoria, British Columbia?
2.	How much has this lawyer or law firm received in payment for services in each of the past five years?
3.	Does IDB in Victoria use a legal firm to represent its interests in each mortgage they grant and, if so, are such fees included in the answer to Part 2?
4.	(a) How many mortgages has the Victoria office granted in each of the past five years (b) what is the total amount of money lent through IDB in Victoria in each of the past five years?


John Napier Turner: 1, 2 and 3.
The Industrial Development Bank engages the services of outside solicitors in connection with the taking of security for its loans. However, since by statute the internal administration of the IDB is in the hands of its Board of Directors, it has not been the practice to make public the names of those who do its legal work since this is a matter relating to internal administration.
4.	The IDB's statistical information is published by province and industrial classification only. During the past five years, the number and amount of loans authorized in British Columbia are as follows:
Fiscal	Number	Amount ($000)1968	493	22,0221969	751	36,2481970	1,094	48,5791971	1,428	63,1891972	1,928	85,683


Mr. Howie: How many permanent married quarters residences were vacant on April 1, 1973 at Base Gagetown?


James Armstrong Richardson: One hundred and sixty-five out of 2,200.


Mr. Howie: What was the total number of Armed Forces personnel located at Camp Valcartier and Base Gagetown, New Brunswick, on March 1 in the years 1972 and 1973?


James Armstrong Richardson: April 18, 1973
Order Paper Questions

Valcartier
March 1, 1972	4,136
March 1, 1973	3,974

Gagetown
3,205
3,183



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Coates: 1.	How many escapes occurred from federal penal institutions in the year 1972 and (a) from what institutions did inmates escape (b) on what dates and in what numbers (c) in each instance, how long a period were the inmates out of custody and at large (d) how many inmates are still at large?
2.	What are the comparable figures for each of (a), (b), (c) and (d) in Part 1 for the years 1968, 1969, 1970 and 1971?
3.	Of those inmates who escaped from institutions in 1972, how many committed crimes while at large and before recapture?
4.	Were there any instances where inmates who escaped from penal institutions and were later recaptured, were not prosecuted for escaping custody and, if so, how many instances and what is the explanation in each instance for not having taken further criminal proceedings?
Return tabled.



DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION PUBLICITY EXPENDITURES

Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion on publicity and/or information in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72?
2.	What were the names and addresses of firms or individuals who received these contracts, what amounts of money were spent in each case and what was the purpose of each contract?
3.	What contracts for publicity and/or information were awarded in the current fiscal year, what are the names and addresses of contractees, what are the amounts of money involved in each case and what is the purpose of each contract?
Return tabled.



DRUGS APPROVED BY FOOD AND DRUG DIRECTORATE

Mr. Rynard: For the period January 1971 to January 1972, how many drugs have been approved by the Food and Drug Directorate that to the knowledge of the government have not been approved by Parcost and what are the names of the drugs?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO MALI

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance in Mali?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO MAURITANIA

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance in Mauritania?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO GUINEA

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance in Guinea?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO TUNISIA

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance in Tunisia?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO MADAGASCAR

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance in Madagascar?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO SENEGAL

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance in Senegal?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO THE IVORY COAST

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance in the Ivory Coast?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.
April 18, 1973



FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO NIGER

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance in Niger?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO HAUTE-VOLTA

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance in Haute-Volta?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO TOGO

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance in Togo?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO DAHOMEY

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance in Dahomey?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO ALGERIA

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance in Algeria?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO MOROCCO

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance in Morocco?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.
Order Paper Questions



FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO ZAIRE

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance in Zaire?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO RWANDA

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance in Rwanda?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO BURUNDI

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance in Burundi?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO CONGO-BRAZZAVILLE

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance in Congo-Brazzaville?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO CAMEROUN

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance in Cameroun?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO GABON

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance in Gabon?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.

April 18, 1973
Order Paper Questions



FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance in the Central African Republic?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO TCHAD

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance in Tchad?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION HEAD OFFICES

Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): 1.	Were the computers installed in five Unemployment Insurance Commission head offices (Moncton, Belleville, Montreal, Vancouver, Winnipeg) purchased or rented?
2.	(a) On what date were they purchased or rented (b) were they new or second-hand (c) at what price (d) if paid by instalments, under what terms and at what interest rate (e) how much was paid for maintenance from the date of purchase to December 31, 1972 (f) how many persons did these computers replace (g) how much was paid to American experts for the installation of these computers (h) how many people are assigned to maintenance?
3.	What was the total paid in salaries by the Unemployment Insurance Commission during the past twelve months?
4.	How many employees draw a salary between (a) $30,000 and $25,000 (b) $25,000 and $20,000 (c) $20,000 and $15,000 (d) $15,000 and $10,000 (e) $10,000 and $5,000?
5.	How many people are employed in the offices at (a) Moncton, New Brunswick (b) Belleville, Ontario (c) Montreal, Quebec (d) Vancouver, British Columbia (e) Winnipeg, Manitoba?
6.	How many people are employed in each of the regional offices in Quebec?
7.	What is the total number of employees in the Unemployment Insurance Commission?
8.	What was the number of office workers (a) before the installation of computers (b) December 31, 1972?
Return tabled.



DREE-APPLICATIONS FOR GRANTS FROM BRITISH COLUMBIA

Mr. Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay): 1.	How many applications for grants has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion received from the Province of British Columbia, since the Department was established?
2.	How many applications have been accepted, which ones and what is the amount involved in each case?
3.	How many applications have been rejected, which ones and for what reasons?

4.	What were the names of industries in British Columbia which created new jobs after receiving a grant?
5.	How many jobs have been actually created in each case?
Return tabled.



MONEY UNDERWRITTEN BY EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Mr. Orlikow: 1.	In each of the past ten years, how much money was underwritten or business done by the Export Development Corporation or its predecessor, the Export and Credit Insurance Corporation, by each of the five regions and each province of Canada?
2.	What was this in per capita terms for each of the five regions and each province of Canada?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 204 is acceptable to the government.



COPY OF CRTC EXAMINATION PAPERS RESPECTING CERTAIN CABLE VISION COMPANIES

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 204-Mr. Rose:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of CRTC examination papers for (a) MSA Cablevision Ltd. 70-255 4-73 (b) Western Cablevision 71-226 5-75 (c) Coquitlam Cablevision 71301-76 (d) Fraser Valley Cablevision 71-229-3-75 (e) Canadian Wirevision Ltd. 71-301-2-76.
Motion agreed to.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 203 is acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents and to the authorization of the government authorities concerned.
[ Translation]


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions mentionned by the parliamentary secretary, does the House agree that notice of motion No. 203 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[ English]



COPY OF ALL CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO A POST OFFICE AT TASCHEREAU, QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 203-Mr. Laprise:
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, petitions and other documents between the government or any department and any person, groups or organizations concerning the erection of a post office or a building to house the post office at Taschereau (Quebec).
April 18, 1973
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 127, 161 to 185 inclusive-perhaps those might be dealt with as a group-and 201.
CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO THE "IRVING WHALE" Motion No. 127-Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):
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, reports and representations issued or received by the Department of Transport relating to the submerged barge Irving Whale.


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the papers requested are of a voluminous character and would require an inordinate cost or length of time to prepare. We have already invited the hon. member to look at these documents, and I would therefore ask him to withdraw his motion.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted, since we are going to have an Easter adjournment. Perhaps during that time I can go through all these documents and try to understand why it has taken so long for the government to take any effective action.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
EFFLUENT REGULATIONS-COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE FOR Macmillan bloedel, port alberni
Motion No. 161-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the time schedule for compliance with the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations which the government is attempting to negotiate with MacMillan Bloedel Limited, Port Alberni, British Columbia.
Hon. Jack Davis ^Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, motion No. 161 relates to the production of papers which are pollution abatement compliance schedules relating to pulp mills in British Columbia. These compliance schedules are negotiated jointly between the federal and provincial authorities on the one hand and the companies on the other, and we are endeavouring to obtain the permission of the provincial authorities to release the relevant permits and other documents. Once we have this information, we will be tabling it.
This comment applies also to the other motions through to motion No. 185. I would therefore ask the hon. member for Skeena to withdraw his motions Nos. 161 to 185 inclusive.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, the minister was kind enough to send me a note of the comments he was going to make. In it he also said that most mills do not yet comply with our federal and provincial regulations. If he can tell me of one mill in British Columbia that has complied with the federal regulations, I will go along with him. Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
Motions for Papers
EFFLUENT REGULATIONS-COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE FOR Macmillan bloedel, nanaimo
Motion No. 162-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the time schedule for compliance with the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations whicn the government is attempting to negotiate with MacMillan Bloedel Limited, Nanaimo, British Columbia.
Transferred for debate.



EFFLUENT REGULATIONS-COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE FOR NORTHWOOD PULP, PRINCE GEORGE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 163-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the time schedule for compliance with the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations which the government is attempting to negotiate with Northwood Pulp Limited, Prince George, British Columbia.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 164-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the time schedule for compliance with the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations which the government is attempting to negotiate with Prince George Pulp and Paper Limited, P.O. Box 6000, Prince George, British Columbia.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 165-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the time schedule for compliance with the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations which the government is attempting to negotiate with Rayonier Canada Limited, Woodfibre, British Columbia.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 166-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the time schedule for compliance with the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations which the government is attempting to negotiate with Rayonier Canada Limited, Port Alice, British Columbia.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 167-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the time schedule for compliance with the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations which the government is attempting to negotiate with Scott Paper Limited, P.O. Box 760, New Westminster, British Columbia.
Transferred for debate.
3426
[Stage Direction]
April 18, 1973
Motions for Papers

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 168-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the time schedule for compliance with the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations which the government is attempting to negotiate with Tahsis Company Limited, Gold River, British Columbia.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 169-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the time schedule for compliance with the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations which the government is attempting to negotiate with Weyerhaeuser Canada Ltd., P.O. Box 800, Kamloops, British Columbia.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 170-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the time schedule for compliance with the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations which the government is attempting to negotiate with Cariboo Pulp and Paper Company, Quesnel, British Columbia.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 171-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the time schedule for compliance with the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations which the government is attempting to negotiate with British Columbia Forest Products Ltd., Mackenzie, British Columbia.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 172-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the time schedule for compliance with the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations which the government is attempting to negotiate with Belkin Paperboard Limited, Burnaby, British Columbia.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 173-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the time schedule for compliance with the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations which the government is attempting to negotiate with British Columbia Forest Products Limited, Crofton, British Columbia.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 174-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the time schedule for compliance with the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations which the government is attempting to negotiate with Canadian Forest Products Limited, New Westminster, British Columbia.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 175-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the time schedule for compliance with the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations which the government is attempting to negotiate with Canadian Forest Products Limited, Port Mellon, British Columbia.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 176-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the time schedule for compliance with the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations which the government is attempting to negotiate with Columbia Cellulose Company, Limited, P.O. Box 1000, Castlegar, British Columbia.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 177-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the time schedule for compliance with the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations which the government is attempting to negotiate with Columbia Cellulose Company, Limited, Prince Rupert, British Columbia (kraft).
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 178-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the time schedule for compliance with the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations which the government is attempting to negotiate with Columbia Cellulose Company, Limited, Prince Rupert, British Columbia (sulphite).
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 179-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the time schedule for compliance with the pulp and paper mill effluent
April 18, 1973
[Stage Direction]
regulations which the government is attempting to negotiate with Crestbrook Forest Industries Ltd., Skookumchuck, British Columbia.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 180-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the time schedule for compliance with the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations which the government is attempting to negotiate with Crown Zellerbach Canada Limited, Campbell River, British Columbia.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 181-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the time schedule for compliance with the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations which the government is attempting to negotiate with Crown Zellerbach Canada Limited, Ocean Falls, British Columbia.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 182-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the time schedule for compliance with the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations which the government is attempting to negotiate with Eurocan Pulp and Paper Co. Ltd., Kitimat, British Columbia and Finlay Forest Industries Ltd., Mackenzie, British Columbia.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 183-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the time schedule for compliance with the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations which the government is attempting to negotiate with Intercontinental Pulp Company Ltd., P.O. Box 600, Prince George, British Columbia.
Transferred for debate.
EFFLUENT REGULATIONS-COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE FOR Macmillan bloedel, annacis island
Motion No. 184-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the time schedule for compliance with the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations which the government is attempting to negotiate with MacMillan Bloedel Limited, 1010 Derwent Wau, Annacis Island, British Columbia.
Transferred for debate.
Oral Questions
EFFLUENT REGULATIONS-COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE FOR Macmillan bloedel, powell river
Motion No. 185-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the time schedule for compliance with the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations which the government is attempting to negotiate with MacMillan Bloedel Limited, Powell River, British Columbia.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 201-Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the International Joint Committee Draft Principles of October 31, 1959 and the Canada-British Columbia Draft No. 2 of November 26, 1960 mentioned in the minutes of meetings of the Canada-British Columbia Policy Liaison Committee on the Columbia River.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the papers requested by the hon. member were prepared as internal working documents by United States-Canada and Canada-British Columbia negotiating teams. The disclosure of documents of this nature would reveal negotiating positions taken by both Canadian and United States negotiators at confidential meetings. Under those circumstances, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have already put forward a motion to obtain the original documents, the minutes of the liaison committee which disclose all the things the parliamentary secretary has mentioned as being confidential discussions and positions. I cannot see any difference between having half the material out and the other half not out. I have to ask that this motion be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[ English]



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Is the minister aware of complaints from employers and the Canadian Manufacturers Associa-
26087-7H

April 18, 1973
Oral Questions
tion that employers frequently send immigrant workers to manpower offices to apply for a work permit, and their applications are vetoed or turned down by manpower officials on the ground that there are qualified Canadians to do the job, and yet the same manpower offices are unable to supply the Canadians to do the job? Has the minister any explanation for this?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, if there are no Canadians available to do the job and a visitor or foreigner who is in this country is not otherwise disentitled from doing it, we will issue work permits. There are odd occasions when this has not worked out. I have had a conference with the directors general of immigration and manpower officials from across the country this morning on this matter, and any rough edges that may have occurred putting this into practice are being smoothed out. We have no desire to impede the operations of employers where work permits can be issued.


COMPLAINTS THAT COUNSELLORS OVERWORKED
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Have the minister or his officials made any response to the overwork grievances that have been received from a number of manpower offices in respect of Canada Manpower counsellors being overworked, and is this the reason for the situation that was described in my first question?


Robert Knight Andras: I think that the situation described in the first question of the Leader of the Opposition would be narrowed down pretty much to the Toronto area where there was a heavy volume. With regard to the workload of manpower counsellors, we have been aware that they are facing a generally heavy work load with all the additional programs they have taken on this past year. All grievances have been considered in accordance with the required grievance procedures. In fact, the staff resources of the department's field offices have been considerably strengthened to take care of increased workloads. Man-years allocated to field offices in the 1972-73 estimates amount to 8,672, which is an increase of 1,017 man-years or 13 per cent.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister has admitted that he has received overwork complaints in respect of manpower counsellors. Would the minister indicate what steps he is taking to enable the manpower officers to discharge their responsibilities, having instituted a work permit system and now presumably going ahead with new programs such as LIP? What does the minister propose to do to enable manpower officers to discharge the responsibilities that he has placed on them?


Robert Knight Andras: I think I just indicated to the Leader of the Opposition the increase in man-years in this year's allocations which are considerable and recognize the problems they are facing. I might say, with regard to the additional burden of work permits, that obviously there has been a special and I think short-term, one-time workload by virtue of the introduction of the system. I might say that

16,677 applications have been received for visas and approval was given and 10,624 visas were issued. Another 2,500 have been rejected. The rest are being processed. I think we will be over that hump very shortly and will return to a more normal stream, but it did create an extra burden for a short time.


INCOME TAX
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue which I ask him at the request of my colleague, the hon. member for Northwest Territories who could not be here today. It arises out of widespread concern in the Northwest Territories and, I understand, in the Yukon as well, over the application of certain sections of the Income Tax Act dealing with benefits enjoyed by employees and paid for or subsidized by employers. I should like to ask the minister whether this matter is being studied by his department and other relevant departments.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, there is a review going on about what subsidies, in particular housing subsidies, in the north might properly be subject to income tax. Further information has been requested by my officials from the territorial government, but I can assure the hon. member that until this review has been completed no territorial residents will be assessed or reassessed to include such subsidies in their incomes, and I will undertake to consult with the hon. member for Northwest Territories before any action is taken.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a short supplementary question. If the minister has not already done so, can he make certain that the representative of his department in Edmonton, which office services the Northwest Territories, is informed of the fact that there is such a review and that there will not be any re-assessment until the review is completed, so that Mr. Marlborough, or some name like that-I don't quite know the name-will not give the people in the north the impression that they come under the act immediately?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I have so instructed.


FINANCE
Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the hon. Minister of Finance.
In the light of higher Bank of Canada interest rates and the attendant uncertainty amongst Canadians, can the
April 18, 1973	COMMONS DEBATES	3429
minister say if this increase will encourage bankers to raise their own interest rates while tightening credit restrictions?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, this is a rather debatable question and I would gladly answer the hon. member in more details on another occasion.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Would the minister not agree that this is one of the first sectors where interest rates and prices should be frozen in order to prevent investment restrictions, economic paralysis and spiralling consumer prices?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's supplementary is rather a recommendation to the minister and he must assume that the latter will consider it.


SUGGESTED CONSIDERATION OF TWO LEVEL RATE OF INTEREST-PROFIT POSITION OF CHARTERED BANKS- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. Since he did not discuss with the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Shultz, the guaranteed exchange of international reserves, I wonder if he is considering with the Bank of Canada the problem of a two level rate of interest, one rate for large corporations and a different rate of interest for loans to small business and small farm people?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I met with the Governor of the Bank of Canada today and with the chief executive officers of the Canadian chartered banks, and reiterated the wish of the government, and I suspect of parliament as well, that priority be given to Canadian-owned small business in the allocation of loans. We did discuss the potential of a two level rate of interest but there are some difficulties, particularly in view of the fact that the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board in the United States was forced to make that type of arrangement because of price control in the United States.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, without debating with the minister that part of his answer, has he given very strict terms of reference to the banks as to their potential profit level, and what are the guidelines for the profits of the chartered banks in view of their flexibility under the amendment that we had?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, after the bank rate was raised, I indicated to the Chairman of the Canadian Banking Association that if they were to raise prime rates I would like to see the spread remain the same. That was done, so that the profit potential of the banks has not been increased by virtue of the rise in the prime rate.
Oral Questions SOCIAL SECURITY


PROPOSED COMMUNITY EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM-POSSIBLE EXTENSION OF LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM
Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It refers to Proposition 3. Here I feel I am talking to Euclid. This has reference to the community employment program, which I find in the orange paper, followed by a number of questions and a reference to LIP. Has the minister anything in mind more than an extended Local Initiatives Program when it comes to the matter of the provision of community employment?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter which I would like to discuss with the provinces. In fact, I have already had the opportunity of discussing it with my colleague, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, and we are now working at it together.


PROPOSAL WITH REGARD TO PENSIONS OF RETIRED
Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I have one more supplementary from the orange paper. Could the minister advise what he has in mind to alleviate the problem of pensioners who are retired railway men and retired RCMP men?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, this document deals with the establishment of a guaranteed income plan for all those who are unable to work, whatever their condition or the nature of their previous employment.


SUGGESTED ADVANCEMENT OF DATE FOR FAMILY
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It has to do with the family allowance program. In view of the fact that the program, as announced, is simplified, and in view of the need of those children in this country who are living in poverty, could he at least consider advancing the date from January 1, 1974?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, first I will have to discuss that matter with my provincial counterparts, have legislation passed in this House and, on top of that, obtain from the provinces a statement of intent as to how they would like to vary the payments made by the federal government. I think that the implementation of such a program and the consultations that will have to take place with the provinces in that respect will surely take a few months, and I

April 18, 1973
Oral Questions
can hardly see how we could look forward to implementing such a program before January 1, 1974.


POSSIBLE LOWERING OF AGE OF ELIGIBILITY FOR OLD AGE PENSIONS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that there was not any reference in the orange paper this afternoon to lowering the pension age to 60 years, I would like to ask whether or not he is still considering this, as he mentioned before the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, if during the Easter recess the hon. member can take the time to read the whole paper he will see that certain questions are raised with regard to that problem. That question is not ruled out in the working paper.


INCOME TAX
Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. In light of the fact that some income tax consulting firms have stated that they will not be able to complete a large number of the income tax returns entrusted to them, and in light of the fact that taxpayers will be the ones to suffer from the delays caused by these firms, can he assure the House that he will extend the April 30 deadline for returns, or that at least he is seriously considering that possibility?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member did not hear my answer, a couple of days ago, to the hon. member for Palliser. I indicated that this course had been considered, but that we did not feel it was desirable. I would point out that there are certain other ways for people to avoid penalties and interest. It is quite simple, really.
Hon. members might be interested to know that already close to 7 million Canadians have filed their returns, and more than 2 million have already received refunds totalling some $300 million.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SUGGESTED EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR FILING TO PERMIT FARMERS TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SYSTEM OF AVERAGING
Thomas Gordon Towers: As a supplementary question, in view of the fact that farmers have to file their income tax returns on time every year in order to take

advantage of the system of averaging, would the minister extend the April 30 deadline in case of late filing by farmers, due to the lateness and complexity of recent tax changes?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, the same information as I gave to the hon. member for Palliser applies to all taxpayers including farmers, but it should be noted that it is not the T1 form but form T2011 which must be filed by April 30, so far as the right to average is concerned. And of course where the farmer files a return with estimated figures by April 30, and his T2011 form by the same date, based on estimated figures, there should be no problem.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Agriculture.
In view of the fact that, to protect the health of Canadian consumers, the federal Department of Agriculture has since last January 1 banned the use by beef producers of DES, or diethylstilbestrol, as a stimulant to the growth of slaughter animals, can the minister say if he knows that we are now importing from the United States beef containing DES? If so, what does he intend to do to improve the situation?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that beef in the United States contains DES. We know that Canadian users are still using DES and Canadian beef still contains DES. It might be of interest to note that the import of cattle into Canada this year at this time is about one third what it was last year.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are a number of hon. members seeking supplementaries on different questions. The Chair will first recognize the hon. member for Richmond on a supplementary, then the hon. member for York-Simcoe has a supplementary to a previous question and then the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.


Léonel Beaudoin: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Since the hon. minister did say that Canadian users are still using DES and that his department did ask that DES be no longer used as a stimulant for the growth of animals, can the hon. minister say what he intends to do to put a stop to it?


Eugene Whelan: Well, Mr. Speaker, we have worked very closely with the United States and we have already allowed the use of Ralgro for implant by Canadian beef producers which has the same effect on the cattle. We are hoping that the United States will make an announcement
April 18, 1973

shortly on what they intend to do with DES, and we will be guided along those lines. It might be of interest also to point out that exports of cattle to the United States were up by 130 per cent over last year as of April 14.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for York-Simcoe and the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Could the minister estimate for the House the cost of the program announced today in its interim and wholly developed stages?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, concerning the cost of the family allowances program, I indicated in my statement that it will exceed $800 million, taking into account the recovery of taxes by the government and some reductions payments now made in other forms.
As to the balance of the program, it is impossible to give any definite figures right now, at least not before we have discussed the matter with the provinces to determine, if not final figures, at least the range of payments which will enable us to establish exact amounts.
The total amount will depend on the level agreed to between the federal and provincial governments.


APPLICATION OF INTERPROVINCIAL PIPE LINE COMPANY TO EXPORT OIL-REQUEST THAT CABINET WITHHOLD APPROVAL UNTIL NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY ESTABLISHED
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Acting Prime Minister arises out of the application which is before the National Energy Board from the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company for additional capacity to ship crude oil to the United States. In view of the fact that the additional capacity is not required for Canadian needs during 1973 or 1974 and the main thrust of the application is for the shipment of some additional 98,000 barrels per day to the United States, I should like to ask the minister, in the event that the National Energy Board approves this application, if the government would give consideration to withholding cabinet approval until such time as the long awaited national energy policy has been designed and implemented?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question appears to be hypothetical and I am not sure that a reply is required.
Oral Questions
Perhaps the hon. member might ask a supplementary or rephrase the question.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is not hypothetical. We are going to leave here today and by the time we return the National Energy Board may have indeed reached its decision. I am asking if the government will withhold approval until such time as parliament has dealt with the national energy policy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's supplementary question does not sound as hypothetical as the first one. Perhaps the minister might like to reply to the hon. member's rephrased question.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I will assume it was not hypothetical but that it was a suggestion to the government which will be taken into account.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that we are leaving here today until May 7, could the Acting Prime Minister give the House the assurance that the cabinet will not give approval to the application of the Interprovincial Pipeline Company until at least parliament has reassembled and the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works has had an opportunity of discussing this matter both with the minister and the chairman of the National Energy Board?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give that undertaking but I will give serious consideration to the suggestion.


PRESIDENT NIXON'S SUGGESTION FOR CO-OPERATION ON ENERGY, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, my question is closely related to the one asked by the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands and is directed to the Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who is, I presume, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of President Nixon's statement on energy this morning, has any decision been reached yet by the cabinet on responding to his suggestion for international co-operation on energy, research and development?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, President Nixon made his statement this morning and we have received it just before the question period; we did not have time to examine all implications. At first sight, we are satisfied that this will not change the Canadian position concerning oil exports. With regard to the hon. member's suggestion, I will advise the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.

April 18, 1973
Oral Questions


INCOME TAX
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. It has been the experience of a number of corporations who have filed their income tax returns that errors have arisen in the verification of the returns by departmental assessors. Since there is a 90-day period during which appeal must be made and it is also a fact that the department is short of officials to hear the appeals, can the minister look into this matter in order to clear that difficulty and remove the possibility of injustice to the firms affected?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I should be glad to look into that, Mr. Speaker.


ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MEN IN APPLICATION OF CHILD CARE EXPENSES PROVISION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Duncan M. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of National Revenue. In reply to a question which I asked the hon. minister on March 1, 1973, regarding discrimination toward male parents under the "child care expenses" provision he was kind enough to send me a letter stating that this was a requirement of the law as passed by parliament and not as he would like to see it. In light of this blatant admission that discrimination toward the male gender does exist, could the minister inform the House whether he will take action to ensure that all parents faced with the difficult task of raising children on their own have equal opportunities to deduct reasonable child care expenses?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, this question should more properly be directed to the Minister of Finance because the Department of National Revenue is obliged to administer the law as parliament passes it. I think the hon. member will understand, if he reads my reply to him carefully and for that matter if he looks at the law, that it is not just a matter of discrimination but an attempt to be sure that there is fairness in the application of this privilege and that one spouse does not take advantage of the other.


CHILD CARE EXPENSES-POSSIBLE APPLICATION OF PROVISION TO FARMERS' WIVES
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the minister. In light of the fact that working mothers are permitted allowances for child care, will the minister provide the same allowances to the wives of farmers who have to assist their husbands in the fields during the harvest and have to employ someone to take care of their children?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly be glad to look into that question for the hon. member, because I think his wife certainly deserves any consideration of that kind that is possible.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Could the minister tell the House if the government has any authority to compel Canadian automotive manufacturers to disclose the details of motor vehicle recall orders and if not, could he tell the house if the government contemplates bringing in such legislation?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the subject of the hon. member's question falls more particularly within the responsibility of the Minister of Transport. I will be happy to discuss it with the Minister of Transport.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if I could direct the question, then, to the Minister of Transport.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I really believe that a question to any minister in this House should be answered by the ministry and if ministers are not paying attention, I suggest to them that they should.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: My question to the Minister of Transport, Sir, is whether he or anyone in the government has the authority to compel Canada's automotive manufacturers to disclose details of automobile recall orders and, if not, can he tell the House if he contemplates bringing in such authority or legislation soon?


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will allow the minister to reply. I certainly do not want to complicate matters, as the question has been asked twice, but I was tempted in the first instance to suggest to the hon. member that in the first part of his question he was seeking a legal interpretation and to that extent the question was not in order. However, the question has been asked twice and the minister might like to reply to the second part starting with "if".


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, everybody knows that many hundred times a year we visit the automobile plants, check designs and check everything that is related to the safety of passengers. In addition to that, when we know that there are defects in any cars, we notify not only the industry, but the provinces and the public, so that everybody is aware
April 18, 1973

that there is danger involved in those cars. Last year I think more than 800,000 cars were recalled and checked by the industry because of defects.


Mr. Fairweather:: Did any cars work well?


Jean Marchand: I do not know about that. I do not know if-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the minister kindly resume his seat. The hon. member wishes to ask a supplementary. He will be allowed to ask it.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I am just wondering. Obviously-


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member please resume his seat. He will be recognized in a moment. I am trying, and I am wondering if the hon. member will allow me, to remind hon. members that we will soon be running short of time if we spend four or five minutes on every question. There are a number of members in the back benches who again will not have the chance to ask questions. The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham is recognized.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Sir, I am afraid I cannot let that go without challenge.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Are you suggesting, Sir, that the delay of five minutes here is my fault?


An hon. Member:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services and relates to an answer received in response to Question No. 1277 on the order paper which was answered today. From the answer the House received the information that of the initial order of 115 CF-5 aircraft, over half are not now in use by the Canadian Armed Forces but are, rather, sitting uselessly in storage or have been sold. In light of that fact, may I ask the minister why an additional 20 have been purchased?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I will first study the question and then give an answer to the hon. member.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but since he has left, I will ask it after the Easter recess.
Oral Questions


POLLUTION
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of the Environment. In view of the fact that the Department of Agriculture has recently released a report indicating that phosphorous has become a major pollutant in Lake Simcoe, may I ask what action is being contemplated by the Department of the Environment to prevent further pollution of this lake and, in particular, of the Holland Marsh area?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, Environment Canada is working closely with the Department of the Environment for Ontario in an attempt to solve the problem. We have, ourselves, taken action with respect to detergents. The research facilities of the Canadian Center for Inland Waters are also involved. This is a co-operative federal-provincial program.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General, and is with regard to the escape last evening of Jean Moisan from Cowansville Prison while he was attending the hockey game in Montreal. I wonder if the minister can explain to this House the circumstances under which Mr. Moisan was attending the hockey game?


An hon. Member:: He was washing the rink.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, two inmates from Cowansville Penitentiary were granted a pass to attend the hockey game under escort.


John Douglas Reynolds: How did they get the tickets?


William Warren Allmand: At the end of the game, one of the inmates disappeared and the guard returned to the penitentiary with the other inmate. I am afraid that we do not have a report on the inmate who disappeared.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Who won the game?


An hon. Member:: Montreal won the game.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: I am quite happy that the series has now moved to Philadelphia.


John Douglas Reynolds: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I realize that this can make a funny story, but I do not think it is a joke. Can the minister explain, inasmuch as there are colour TV's in prison, if it is government policy to give

April 18, 1973
Oral Questions
$15 hockey tickets to inmates, to enable them to attend hockey games?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the tickets were bought by the penitentiary service. What we are trying to do in the penitentiary system is set up a series of incentives-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: -whereby men can earn privileges like these from time to time. It is regrettable that this incident happened. On the whole, as I pointed out last year, we issued 63,000 temporary absence passes and less than one half of one per cent ended in failure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


HIGHWAYS
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Is he aware of a statement made by the Minister of Highways in the province of British Columbia recently regarding the Fort Nelson-Fort Simpson Road? Has the minister now, in light of that commitment by the provincial government of B.C. to immediately begin construction of their portion of the highway, realigned his priorities and committed the federal government to complete that section of the road that is under federal jurisdiction?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to note that the government of British Columbia has again changed its mind, but I am in a rather difficult position, since it had stated last fall that nothing would be done. I therefore set up the departmental priorities accordingly but since the government of British Columbia has changed its mind, I will reconsider the problem. However, I cannot promise to alter this year our construction plans in the North. If they had not changed their minds, I would not have to change our plans.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. I wonder if the minister can inform the House whether or not the government intends to carry on with the Prairie Farm Assistance Act program this year in light of the moves which have

been made in relation to crop insurance. Last year a conflict developed in that many producers bought crop insurance, realizing that if they gained anything under it they could not collect from PFAA. Can the minister inform us about the future of the PFAA program this year?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, it is still our intention to follow up the announcement of the government in 1972 that PFAA would be phased out. The program is only being carried out in one or two parts of the province of Alberta this year. Crop insurance is what we advise people to take out.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I remind hon. members that there are too many supplementaries. I am trying to see as many members as possible before the end of the question period.


POSSIBLE USE OF PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE FUND AS DISASTER FUND
William George Knight: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Prairie Farm Emergency Fund under PFAA now contains some $14,910,000, can the minister inform the House if this fund is to be revised, in the sense that it is to be used as a disaster fund, as farmers all across southern Saskatchewan and Alberta face the real possibility of drought and a grasshopper plague this coming year.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, a disaster fund is probably a very good suggestion. When you check the record as to what the government has paid out in disaster areas in which farmers have not taken out crop insurance and where PFAA has been inadequate, you will see that the fund certainly could be useful.


TRANSPORT
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Transport. It is following up on one I asked him recently. Can the minister inform the House if he will have the regulations governing passenger ships amended so that small boats operated for pleasure, such as taking people out sports fishing, will not come under the regulations which require such vessels to carry self-inflatable life rafts, provided the other safety regulations are not diminished? In this connection, will the minister have the officials of his department meet with the operators to see if some common ground can be arrived at?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, since we can make regulations, there is no doubt we can change them. The problem is whether it is wise. Will changing the regulations show the people in those craft how to swim? We must make inquiries to ensure that
April 18, 1973	________________________COMMONS
if we change the regulations, the safety of the people will be assured.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. It is of some urgency since prairie farmers may well be starting to plant their crops. Is the minister aware that American interests are buying up large amounts of fertilizer in western Canada and that our own farmers are unable to obtain sufficient supplies for their needs?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, this is a new matter that has been brought to my attention. I have been checking reports about fertilizer supplies not being available. Most of the inquiries we have made have shown that this is not so. If the hon. member has new evidence, I would be glad to look at it and take the appropriate action. Canadians must be served first, especially by those plants which received DREE grants-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


FINANCE
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Due to the fact that one of the major reasons for the rise in the bank rate in Canada is the differential in rates between Canada and the United States, does the minister believe the change in the United States today will require a rise in the bank rate in Canada?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member would want me to speculate.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Solicitor General. In view of the fact that the public's tolerance and patience respecting Rochdale College in Toronto is almost at an end, and that an open confrontation between citizens and ratepayers groups of metro Toronto and residents of that college is developing this very day, and in view of the fact that Rochdale has clearly defaulted on its CMHC mortgage and the Minister of State for Urban Affairs has refused to take action, will the Solicitor General advise what action he is prepared to

Oral Questions
take to clean up this place and convert the building into something more useful than the haven for drug traffickers which it is now?
Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The question stated by the hon. member is totally without foundation. The federal government, through the instrumentality of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, has been taking every possible action to take possession. We have to obey the law and the order of the Supreme Court of Ontario which refused to give us possession. It was at our suggestion and request of the courts that a receiver was appointed to act on behalf of the creditors. That is the position we are enforcing in order to foreclose with all possible diligence.


Some hon. Members:: hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister rose on a question of privilege. I suggest it was a point of debate. I must remind the hon. member for St. Paul's that his question did allege facts and to that extent it was not in order. The hon. member might like to rephrase his question or ask a supplementary.


Ronald George Atkey: To the extent there is evidence available to the government to the effect there has been a substantial amount of drug trafficking in Rochdale College, what action is the Solicitor General prepared to take?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, whenever there are infractions, the RCMP does its best to enforce the Narcotics Act. I will have to get a report with regard to all cases involving Rochdale College. I will do that and give the report to the hon. member.


CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT-CANADIAN PROPOSALS
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It concerns the Canada-U.S. auto agreement. In view of the tough line the Americans seem to be taking with regard to the agreement, does the minister have an alternative plan to the present agreement that he can put into effect as a bargaining lever?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question yesterday, as I have on previous occasions. I indicated to the House that we are prepared to entertain improvements in the working of the auto pact, provided there are the necessary protective devices to ensure that Canadians will have a fair share of the North American market.

April 18, 1973
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


GOOSE BAY AIR BASE-LAY OFF OF CANADIAN CIVILIANS-POSSIBLE REPRESENTATIONS TO THE UNITED STATES
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the layoffs of Canadian civilians at the Goose Bay air base on Monday and the problems with regard to pensions and severance pay, can the minister inform the House whether an approach was made to the government of the United States and what was that approach?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I understand that few Canadians are to lose their jobs as a result of the new arrangements at Goose Bay, because the Ministry of Transport will be hiring virtually all the civilian employees now working for the United States air force. A small number of what the United States air force calls "non-appropriated fund employees" may become unemployed. This group is not entitled to the same pension and other benefits as those employed directly by the U.S. air force. However, we have asked the United States government, through diplomatic channels, to give sympathetic consideration to their case.


FINANCE
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is it the minister's intention to re-introduce the tariff which he unilaterally took off on February 20, 1973, on the importation of beef and beef cattle to Canada?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we are reviewing all manufacturing and agricultural products that may or may not be adversely affected, either by way of employment or production. We are reviewing cattle and beef along with the rest of the items.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot and then call orders of the day. I apologize to the hon. member, but he will notice that we have gone beyond the time allotted for the question period. I was trying to recognize a number of hon. members without supplementaries. That is why I will recognize the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot and then call orders of the day.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. On the last occasion on which I asked a question in this House, I rose on nine consecutive sitting days before I was able to do so. Before I was able to ask this question I have risen on five consecutive days. Following the recess, Your Honour might consider the possibility of looking into the corners of the House more frequently.


Mr. Speaker:: I look in all corners, including that of the hon. member. I certainly have no objection to allowing the

hon. member a supplementary. The Chair will then recognize the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot and then call orders of the day.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I wish to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister made representations to the Minister of Finance to have the tariff on beef and beef cattle imports reintroduced?


Eugene Whelan: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have discussed this on many occasions. We in the Department of Agriculture are watching for evidence that there may be some damage. As I stated earlier in reply to a question, the movement of cattle to the United States is far greater than ever before and the movement into Canada from the United States is far less than ever before.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Because most members of this House who represent rural areas in Ontario, including I presume the Minister of Agriculture, are presently being inundated by correspondence from constituents who are beef producers, will the minister advise if he proposes to reinstate the use of DES implant or, in the alternative, to refuse entry to Canada of U.S. live slaughter cattle and dressed beef, one of which decisions appears necessary by May 1, the end of the 120 day withdrawal period?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I have stated before that we would not see the beef producers of this country hurt in any way, and they are not being hurt. Some of the statements that are being made by members are more likely to hurt members of the beef industry than anything else since most of them are not accurate.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Timiskaming rising on a point of order?


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a point of order with the President of the Privy Council concerning the question period and its operation. I think my point of order affects most of the members of this House.
Since the advent of research assistants we have had two parts to the question period. There is the formal part of the question period consisting of written questions prepared from other sources which are presented to Your Honour in the form of a list. Then, there are other questions. I suggest to the President of the Privy Council who acts as government House leader, on behalf of the Speaker, that he meet with the other political parties and either formalize this arrangement or eliminate it. As an individual member of this House, my privilege is the same as that of any other individual member. There are no lists of
April 18, 1973

members who are supposed to be first since that is your choice, Mr. Speaker. I think it is an affront to Your Honour, an affront to me and an affront to a lot of Members of Parliament, that you are given a list by the parties and are expected to call the names in the order listed so that prearranged questions can be asked.
If it is the wish of the House to follow this practice, I suggest that the President of the Privy Council, as Hou'se leader, should prepare a formula to implement this arrangement so that Your Honour is no longer abused. I think this would eliminate much of the dissatisfaction that is apparent. I raise this point, not because there has been any particular abuse today, but simply because this is a device that is being used by the parties rather than by individual members of the House. Your Honour is being asked to do something that may be in conflict with your obligation to each and every member as equals in this House.


Mr. Speaker:: I will not comment on the point made by the hon. member for Timiskaming, but I cannot resist commenting that the Chair has never felt bound by any list submitted to it. When whips or other representatives of parties have made suggestions to the Chair as to the order in which the original questions ought to be asked, I have received such suggestions as suggestions only. Hon. members whose names do appear on these lists know that this is not always a guarantee that they will be recognized. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, March 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. Whelan that Bill C-129, to amend the Crop Insurance Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in this debate because of the importance of crop insurance to the constituency of Assiniboia and to western producers in general. Since the crop insurance program was introduced major changes have taken place, mostly at the provincial level, to make the program more attractive to the producers. The members of this party look forward to getting this bill through the House in order to reduce the premiums paid by farmers for crop insurance. Already farmers are purchasing crop insurance for this year, hoping that federal Members of Parliament will pass this legislation and reduce the premiums.
I asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) some questions today pertaining to crop insurance and the difficulties being experienced by farmers in my area. When the crop insurance program was introduced, the intention of the government was that it replace the Prairie Farm Assistance Act to a large degree; I am sure the minister
Crop Insurance Act
agrees with that. Many farmers found that particular act to be inadequate for their purposes. Once every five years my area dries out, and the farmers found PFAA to be of advantage to them.
With the introduction of the crop insurance program, it was assumed that PFAA would be phased out. Nevertheless, it continued in force last year, though the government had ceased to take the 1 per cent dockage, if I may call it that, on bushels of grain moved by western producers. In some areas the federal government paid out, and although one cannot complain at any pay-out made by the federal government, it did create some complicated situations.
The major problem was this. Under the Crop Insurance Act the benefits might be somewhat limited compared with amounts collected under PFAA. With the government holding up its decision on PFAA last year, many western producers in south and southwest Saskatchewan, not knowing whether it would be in operation, bought crop insurance. Then when the fall came the federal government decided, it being an election year, to continue PFAA in operation, and many farmers found they could not collect. Farmers all through the Bengough and Minton areas in my constituency were caught in a cross-fire between the two programs. I think this is one of the major reasons the percentage of votes gained by the Liberal party in this area was no higher than 14 per cent.
If PFAA continues in force, this complication will still exist. I have placed a motion on the order paper in my name which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending legislation to enable farmers to receive the benefits under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, whether or not they are receiving at the same time benefits under the Crop Insurance Act, and to provide for additional funds to be made available for the grassland incentive program.
The reason I am moving that motion is to try to clear up the situation if both PFAA and crop insurance are available in any one year. The latter part of the motion relates to the grassland incentive program, and I am pleased to see that the government has answered the plea for increased funds for that program. Now many young producers in my area wishing to go into beef production can take cultivated acreage out of production.
In the area of crop insurance you have PFAA being phased out and the crop insurance program coming in. As I pointed out during the question period today, the sum of $14,910,286 is left in the prairie farm emergency fund under PFAA. What we should be examining this year, particularly this spring, is a program that overlaps with crop insurance if there is widespread disaster. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) would be able to tell the House about the disaster in his area last year. We in southern Saskatchewan have experienced a winter of very little snow. I am told that the Souris River, which runs through part of my constituency, is down by at least a foot and a half this spring since there has been no run-off. Producers in the Scout Lake area of Saskatchewan are saying that their dug-outs have gone dry, and I can well believe them. We are facing one of the driest springs on the Prairies this year that we have faced for a long time. Because of lack of snowfall, we had one of the must unusual winters in a decade. We are also faced with

April 18, 1973
Crop Insurance Act
an outbreak of grasshoppers in isolated areas. We cannot expect any assistance from the federal government in this regard. As a result of these two facts and the predicted drought this year, we are facing potentially one of the worst years in decades.
This government should move now to ensure that the PFAA remains constituted in such a way that if we are hit with an over-all disaster this year, there will be some relief forthcoming. This may require amendments in respect of crop insurance. In southern Saskatchewan and southern Alberta, in what is known as the Palliser triangle, we have no grain left to move. This is mainly the result of the Lift program. I know the Minister of Agriculture does not like that program which encouraged the farmers not to produce. We appreciate that fact and hope the minister will make sure that such a program is not attempted again.
The PFAA now has an emergency fund of over $15 million which could be used as a catalyst in setting up an over-all emergency program in the event that we in fact face the kind of year that is predicted for western producers. They are an optimistic lot and are still looking forward to some rain in the month of April. In spite of that, the producers on the Prairies face the real possibility of a drought this year as well as an outbreak of grasshoppers. In addition, the world situation lends itself to the belief that we will have a food shortage on a worldwide basis. If we are serious about keeping producer incomes at reasonable levels to ensure that they stay in business we must follow the lead, in respect of crop insurance, provided by the kind of amendments adopted by the government of Saskatchewan under its minister of agriculture, Mr. Messer. Those amendments represent substantial changes and have resulted in a greater number of farmers taking out crop insurance.
We need an over-all disaster plan or insurance fund in order to meet the situation should we be hit with a disaster this year; and this is a potential danger. I am sure the minister has difficulty in obtaining additional funds from Treasury Board, but there is an emergency fund in existence now under PFAA. Perhaps he could use this fact to persuade Treasury Board to give him more money for the establishment of an emergency fund for the assistance of producers in this country. I am sure that if the minister followed this suggestion he would go into the annals of this country as having done something very real for the western producers.
As the hon. member for Assiniboia, I would be more than willing to give the minister at least part of the credit;
I would not take it all. If he followed this suggestion, I am sure he would be invited to attend the farm forum again next year-he attended this year-and could then give an excellent speech on the creation of the disaster fund. I seriously urge the minister to consider crop insurance in that context and the concept of a disaster fund.
Crop insurance is one mechanism used in creating adequate incomes for the producers. Crop insurance is selling well this year in Saskatchewan, particularly in my area. I suggest this is the result of the substantial changes made by the Saskatchewan government. However, there are

other problems relating to farm income in respect of which change is required, and the change I have suggested should be initiated by the federal government.
I want to be positive about these matters. As an indication of that desire I compliment the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) for the increase in funds to build larger dug-outs under PFRA. This was a very good move and indicates what can be done when the minister is willing to listen and accept suggestions of members of the opposition.


An hon. Member:: Now, we need water to fill them.


William George Knight: Yes, we now need water to fill them. If the minister can accomplish that for us, we will be indebted to him. I compliment the minister for listening to that suggestion and making the necessary change. Let me also compliment the Minister of Agriculture for his announced changes in respect of the grassland incentive program. I spoke with at least a dozen young people after the last election who informed me they will be taking advantage of this increase in funds. They are interested in diversifying their operations by going into cattle production. I do not like to take all the credit, but I think I should take some as a result of the increase in funds under PFAA for dug-outs and the increase in respect of grassland incentives.
Let me point out some very serious problems in respect of grasslands. I hope Air Canada does not mind that I used my boarding pass for making notes of what a producer told me during my trip to Ottawa. He pointed out that in order to stabilize farm income, producers were diversifying their operations. Many of them are beginning to raise cattle. In this regard I must point out that farmers are facing serious problems in respect of community pastures. The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and the Minister of Agriculture must take this fact into consideration in relation to stabilizing the income of western producers.
As an example of the situation I would point out that 1,200 head of cattle were turned away from the community pasture land around Mount Hope, in the Semans district, because of lack of space. I hope the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) does not mind my using figures in respect of his area: I know he is concerned about the community pasture situation around Nokomis, where 1,100 head were turned away. This area is very good cattle producing country. However, it is not nearly as good as the country in my area of Saskatchewan. If 1,200 head have been turned away from pasture land at Mount Hope and 1,100 head at Nokomis, I suggest that is peanuts in comparison with the number of cattle that will be turned away from community pasture land in the southern part of the province. This is becoming a very serious problem and the government should move under PFRA to increase the funds to be used for the purchase of additional community pasture land.
Let me give the House an example of what I have in mind. A large ranch in the Carlyle district recently went bankrupt. It had been financed by the Industrial Development Bank which is operated under the auspices of this government: it does not do much for small or medium size businesses but it did finance this large operation which

recently went belly up. The Industrial Development Bank took back this large unit of land. Here was an opportunity for the government to purchase this large unit of land through PFRA funds and turn it into community pasture land. Had this been done, the pressure would have been taken off community pasture lands in south central and southeastern Saskatchewan. Such action would provide a considerable degree of assistance. This is not a big thing in the sense of national over-all policy, but it is fundamental if we want to be sure young people undertaking the raising of cattle will have some hope of success.
I know of another rancher of long standing in another area who is prepared to sell out a very large unit of land. This land could be purchased with PFRA funds and used for community pasture. The provincial government has made some progress in this direction. However, a great deal more progress could be made if the provincial and federal governments co-operated in this regard as well as in the establishment of a national, farm disaster plan initially using the emergency funds of PFAA.
I take pleasure in the fact that the bill will bring down the cost of crop insurance to the farmers. I am pleased to see the increase in the funding of the grasslands incentives program which is a voluntary program. I am glad to see also the increase in funding to permit larger dug-outs under PFRA and the increase in funding to allow for the establishment of more community pastures wherever they can be established. These provisions will contribute in a substantial manner to the development of a diversified, well-planned farm operation in western Canada. A producer of beef who wishes to expand his herd, and is told by government to diversify, will know that the government at least is moving in the direction of auxiliary programs to ensure that he can diversify. He will have an opportunity to obtain pasture land, and should there be a disaster in southern Saskatchewan or southeast Alberta, he will know that there is a national farm disaster plan with large contingency funds to meet that disaster. This knowledge should be especially comforting this year in view of the danger of a very severe drought as well as a severe outbreak of grasshoppers.
In conclusion, I say that westerners are always optimistic. We have had to be like Newfoundlanders in that we have had to depend on the weather so much that we have learned to be very optimistic and to live with the weather. We are still optimistic that, in fact, this year we will not face a disaster in the form of a drought. The minister's speeches are piled up in my office and I have been diligently reading them in search of some action which I have not found. After diligently reading them, I hope to see the piles of paper turned into an over-all comprehensive program which will protect the producers in this country should they face a real disaster in the form of drought and grasshoppers.


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in what I believe to be the conclusion of the debate on crop insurance legislation, I should like to say to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) that I regret that the government has seen fit to use in crop insurance legislation as what is commonly called in this House
Crop Insurance Act
"filler" legislation. It seems to me this piece of legislation is too important to be treated in this manner. It is also unfortunate that when the legislation was introduced some weeks ago the government did not see fit to continue the debate of the following day, so that the bill could have been dealt with in the House of Commons and moved on to the Agriculture Committee. I know from talking to some ministers of agriculture across the country that this legislation is being awaited at the present time. A good many programs and possibilities hinge upon what the provinces will be doing this coming spring. Also I believe the farmers are looking forward to this legislation as possibly being a little better vehicle than we had before in Canada for at least a form of crop insurance.
The way in which this piece of agricultural legislation has been brought in I think is, to some extent, typical of the attitude the government has had toward agriculture. We have a Minister of Agriculture who has done a good deal of speaking across the country of late. Like the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight), I have read his speeches but I have not been able to find much in them. He seems to have been patting farmers on the head and saying that everything is all right, that he would stick up for them. However, that really is as far as he has gone. It seems the government has the attitude that while prices are high, as a result of the supply and demand situation, this is the time to sit back and not really look to see whether any improvements can be made in the field of agriculture. I think this is too bad. I certainly hope the Minister of Agriculture realizes this. After reading his speeches, I have yet to find that he has given any direction to farmers' programs or agricultural policy.
The farmers of Canada are asking questions. They are asking questions individually and also within their farm organizations. They are continuing something this year which started last year and which I believe is very good. They are starting to challenge some of the systems we have had over the past few years. This really is the time to challenge these systems. I refer to the marketing system, the transportation system, the feed grain system and the system of marketing within a world or global context. If the inquiring and searching were done in times of low prices, there could be a tendency to look at it as a panic situation or a very emotional situation. If this were to happen it could cloud our whole thinking. The only thing the minister has come up with has been that this year he wants the farmers to grow all the grain possible. I think he used the statement "to beat the band". There has been no clear, definite direction, except by the minister responsible for the Wheat Board, as to what the government would like.
Statistics Canada published an indication of what the farmers intended to plant this year. It revealed that the farmers do not have the kind of confidence we would all like to see. I think the attitude taken by the Minister of Agriculture towards Canadian farmers is not good enough. The minister seems to be woefully lacking in his duty to the Canadian farmer. I say in all sincerity that he must give an indication of the direction in which the government is going. He must start raising questions of a challenging nature with the people engaged in agriculture concerning what should be done. It is my thinking, and I certainly think the thinking of the Conservative party,

April 18, 1973
Crop Insurance Act
that the basic philosophy behind any approach to agriculture-and I say this because crop insurance is certainly a part of it-must be that the total expansion of our agricultural output here in Canada should be directed toward three areas. The first would be exports. What can we do to increase our exports above what they have been to the present time? Markets which are given to us are easy to secure, but markets which one must search for and hold through aggressive marketing, are another thing.
The second area is secondary processing. I think it has become an accepted fact that the number of Canadian farmers on the Prairies will not increase by any significant amount. If we want to have rural areas-and there is not one member in this House or a person anywhere who does not wish to have viable rural areas

we can only have them if we have a secondary processing industry linked closely with agriculture. This can be done. There also must be greater producer incentive. I do not believe the Minister of Agriculture has given any incentive to producers. The government itself has done little in this area.
There will also have to be a drastic reorganization of the Department of Agriculture. We have found over the past few years that the department should become more producer oriented, less bureaucratic, and less rigid. It must be able to co-operate more effectively both with the provinces and with private business, to seek out and expand new markets, and also to prepare legislation such as the bill now before us. I think the Department of Agriculture headed by the minister, along with other government departments, should be aware of the fact that a balance must be achieved between primary producers and secondary processing industry in the rural areas of the country.
I have made these comments because I think it is time that they were made in the House of Commons. Many people assume, probably rightly so, that the federal gover-ment is still using the psychology of Lift, in other words, withdrawing productive areas in times of over supply. It is time that this idea was expelled from the Department of Agriculture, and this can only be done if the minister decides to give direction and to do more than just talk to farmers to soothe them or to pour oil on troubled waters. In fact, this is all that he is really doing and that is why there has not been any leadership from him.
So far as crop insurance is concerned, we in the Conservative party find no insurmountable objection to the legislation that has been presented, but when the bill goes to committee we certainly intend to put questions and make suggestions with regard to the general objective of the legislation. It is significant that the number of farmers participating in crop insurance has actually dropped over the past year. In 1970-71 there were 55,000 but in 1971-72 the number went down to 46,000, The question that must be asked is why only 20 per cent of the total farming population is making use of this kind of insurance. There must be some glaring faults in the program. The question that must be asked is whether the 25 per cent increase in the federal government's contribution to this program will overcome the faults in it. Frankly I do not believe so.
I think that one of the faults which can be found with the crop insurance program is that until this time at

least-I hope this will change, and once again it is up to the Minister of Agriculture to provide the necessary stimulus-the Department of Agriculture has not promoted the program sufficiently in various provinces. This is part of the job of the federal government. If it wishes to sell the insurance, it must do so on a businesslike basis and it must be done more efficiently and knowledgeably. Also, I believe that insurance legislation must be tailored more to managerial ability. A few years ago this may not have been necessary, but at present farming can no longer be called a way of life; it is a highly complex business involving a great amount of money.
The ability to manage a farm, demonstrated through records or through some other device over a period of time, should be seriously considered by the government in assessing crop insurance. I also think the over-all administration of the program should be improved so that a larger number of farmers can gain a greater degree of confidence in it. This is another aspect that has not been referred to. The federal government is deeply involved in the program, but its administration is left up to the ten individual provinces. At times this becomes very confusing, not only from the federal point of view but also from the provincial point of view. Once again this is where the minister" should provide the necessary impetus to improve the administration of this program, at least at the federal level. It is my opinion that if this program is to be acceptable it should include hail insurance, fire insurance and also wildlife damage because we find that these three factors contribute to a large extent to the lowering of the yield and in some cases they virtually wipe out the yield in various parts of Canada. I certainly think that such additional insurance would make the plan much more acceptable to the entire farming community.
It was mentioned by the hon. member for Assiniboia that a disaster or emergency plan should be included in the legislation. Judging from what happened in the Peace River area this year, this request is justified. I am referring to a disaster or emergency plan being administered in such areas as the Peace River area. I have had some discussions with the Minister of Agriculture on this, and I think that what the government has been doing until now has at times been totally unacceptable. The farmers in the Peace River area have experienced crop failures because of the location and because of the climate more often than any other areas in the country.
The crop insurance program as proposed at present, even with the amendment which the government has brought in, I do not believe will allay the fears that farmers have. Special compensation for crops that are damaged under snow, for example, should be given serious consideration. Perhaps as much as 50 per cent of the value of the crop should be payable when it is under snow. The minister is aware, I am sure, that even if a crop is damaged by snow and the farmer is able to recoup some of it in the spring, its quality and weight as well as its market value have deteriorated. There is a definite justification for the setting up of some kind of disaster or emergency plan in these cases. I think such a plan could be worked out, and I do not think it would have any significant effect on crop insurance. I think that if the emergency plan were worked out properly, crop insurance would still remain the
April 18, 1973

number one plan for protection. I think the minister should give serious consideration to this suggestion.
As I mentioned before, total emphasis is put in the bill on the provision of an extra 25 per cent in premiums. This seems to be the basis of the government's assumption that the program will work. The government is just going to pump more money into this insurance program and believes that doing so will make it more acceptable. Once again I say that I question this assumption. Anything we did in the past along this line of pumping money into a program did not really have that great an effect.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I hope the Minister of Agriculture will take note of some of the points I have raised. It is very important that agriculture be given some direction, because at present we have just been fortunate enough to benefit from the misfortunes of others. Crop insurance is one area that is being looked at at present as it relates to a total agriculture policy, but it is a very small area, although a necessary area. As I said before, insurance is a vital thing in agriculture, as in any other occupation. I hope that the suggestions I have made this afternoon will be brought to the minister's attention. When the legislation comes before the committee I hope we will get some answers for these problems, and possibly we can work together in committee to make the bill more acceptable and better adapted to farming in Canada.
[ Transla tion]


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say at the outset that I was very anxious to take part in this debate on behalf of the farmers of my constituency. I believe it is a duty for me to do so, for I had formally committed myself in that respect, and I have also had the opportunity to take part many times in the committee proceedings.
As the minister is in the House as usual, when we deal with important agricultural questions, I should like to make a few observations that were suggested to me by the farmers of my constituency, as well as by the farm organizations with which I am regularly in contact. And those meetings have enabled me to secure very useful information. I often get good advice from certain colleagues who have more experience than I have in agriculture, but I believe it is in this way that I can better serve those I represent in this House.
I see that the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cote) glanced at me. It is true that I seek advice from him from time to time, and I do the same with the Progressive Conservative member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth). Both of them often gave me excellent advice and information and I avail myself of this opportunity to thank them.
I am also pleased to see a member from eastern Canada. A year ago, I had asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) whether he was considering the possibility of appointing a Minister of State responsible for the Department of Agriculture, to represent Eastern Canada, in view of the fact that the farmers' problems are quite different from one region to the other, I realize that after the election of October 30, we not only have a Minister of State but a Minister from Eastern Canada and who will naturally
Crop Insurance Act
have a better understanding of Eastern problems. Moreover, I do not think western farmers can be shocked since the minister responsible for the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) is from the West. Therefore, I think this distribution is quite fair.
I would like to speak about the federal government contribution which will amount to 50 per cent of the premiums. I think that the change made this year, to the effect that the provinces will only pay for administration costs, was desirable. This is a considerable advantage for the provinces and I must support the passage of this bill as all hon. members.
I would also like to invite the Minister, in the light of the information I have secured, as I said earlier, to discuss possible changes which, in my opinion, must be made.
For instance, it is regrettable that the evaluations made of damages sustained a few years back are obsolete because the yield per acre has of course increased thanks to processes which are today much more positive. I think it is our duty and in our interest to review these evaluations and have them match the yield per are which, as I said earlier, has considerably increased in certain cases.
It is also regrettable that the increase in the number of insured people is not felt as desired. Many producers or farmers showed some concern about the viability or the security of such an insurance and we are aware that many of them are not protected because they refused to pay an insurance premium.
There are reasons that explain why the number of insured farmers has gone down. It might be time to seriously consider setting up a universal insurance policy. Of course, several reasons would warrant a certain education which would make the merits of an insurance evident to the farmer. This is absolutely necessary but, as I said, evaluations being out-of-date, the policy-holder's dissatisfaction with some results, often incited him to drop this insurance. It is unfortunate that, when damages occur like those we witnessed during the past months, producers should find themselves without insurance and without protection.
I think that we would benefit in devising an insurance that could be universal, recognized as such for any producer in Canada. The minister should pay special attention to this possibility, and I know that it would be advisable, once more, to discuss the establishment of such a policy with the provinces.
I should also like to point out to the minister the importance of having all the farm products protected and insured. Often, in some provinces, people complain when they see such or such products not being protected. Again, I know that this is a question often falling under provincial jurisdiction and, in that respect, I suggest to the minister that he meet with his opposite numbers in the provinces to set up an insurance program that would reach all producers of whatever commodity. I believe that it would be above all in the producers' interest to convince them that they should pay 50 per cent of the premium for the protection that the legislation could provide them, to the extent, once more, that it would amount to the expenses incurred.

April 18, 1973
Crop Insurance Act
I should also like to touch upon a point which caused many difficulties to the producers last year, that is the establishment of a more orderly insurance plan or a much more valuable guarantee than that now in existence against disasters. Last year, as other hon. members have pointed out, Quebec and Ontario experienced damages that result from disasters which put the farmer in a really difficult situation.
We do know the consequences of the disaster which occurred last summer, and we know also the regulations which have been set up. I know that an amount of $9 million has been distributed among 22,500 farmers, which meant $400 per farm. We are perfectly aware of the fact that many producers have lost a lot more, and in some cases, it amounted to thousands of dollars. Therefore, these $400 were welcome. No one could refuse $400, but we know as well that this way of compensating damages was very unfair, considering these loss differences on the evaluations that we should have done.
Is it possible to correct this situation through the implementation of a policy to provide for a compensation fund which would be available to producers affected by a disaster? I speak on behalf of all Canadian producers who would wish have the assurance of this government that they will have a fund at their disposal should a disaster occur, according to their losses, and I suggest that we should consider the fact whenever such a disaster occurs, that it is absolutely necessary to assess damages to the crops, which are nearly non-existent, in some cases. In such cases, the labour and warehouse costs for some products must be paid, which means additional losses, for various reasons.
All these aspects should be taken into account when assessing a loss due to a disaster, and I suggest that it is important that the minister consider seriously the establishment of such a fund that could be used to meet in a fairer and more equitable way all losses incurred, which would eliminate forever difficulties and insecurity for the producer. He is entitled, like any other citizen, to this security. It has been said time and again that it is thanks to unions that several thousands of people have a security they did not enjoy a few years ago.
The farmer has been neglected and he is always faced with insecurity. The crop insurance program insures part of the crops to the extent the farmer can unfortunately be misinformed, but it is not comprehensive. A universal program would perhaps be less expensive and would make it possible for farmers to have this security. I also know that farmers are always a little embarrassed to pay a premium on following autumn's crop. I wonder if the minister could not negotiate to a certain extent with companies so that they allow farmers to pay their insurance premiums at harvest time and I also wonder whether the insurance companies could not accept such a point of view, because if the crop is good, there will be no problem; the farmer will be able to pay his premium, if it was payable within six months. If there was no crop because of bad weather or for any other reason, the insurance company would pay. As the government already pays 50 per cent of this premium, the insurance company would not have to finance 100 per cent. It would be in a better position to

finance the 50 per cent which make up the share of the farmer who would have to invest a lot until harvest.
I make these few remarks, Mr. Speaker, because these are subjects which I am occasionally reminded of, and because these are arguments that every farmer would like to explain personally to the minister.
So I am speaking on behalf of a group of farmers in my riding, who will be very happy to learn that I made these representations to the minister concerned.
Before concluding my comments I should like to say a few words about young farmers who may be more involved than many others while their role becomes increasingly important. The department should allow them to take over the family farm with much greater advantages.
I know that there is a farm loan program and I should like the minister to give a special attention to the possibility of exempting the young farmer from paying back the interests during the first five years of operation. That would enable him to benefit from the insurance premium referred to in the bill we are studying today-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, although I acknowledge his interest for agriculture-undoubtedly a wide subject-and particularly for young farmers. Still, I should like him to advise the Chair how the point he is dealing with now and on which he seems prepared to speak at length relates to the bill which bears specifically on crop insurance.
I invite him to come back to the subject under study.


Roch La Salle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall make a few remarks, as other hon. members before me have expressed rather general views on the importance of the farmer.
When I speak about benefits that we should make available to young farmers, I know that the minister is aware of the problem and anxious to help young farmers even more. As for me, I believe that they should be able to afford this insurance premium because this insurance is absolutely necessary for them. I think that would enable us to increase the number of those insured, for not only the government but all who are concerned with agriculture seem to be worried about how few farmers are taking advantage of this insurance.
I sincerely hope that these few remarks will enable the minister to understand my point of view. I shall end by repeating the requests I made on behalf of the farmers in my constituency, and I hope that the minister will take them into consideration. I add my voice to those other hon. members who intend not only to support this bill, but to ask the minister, insofar as is possible, to do more for our farmers, for that could only benefit the rest of the nation's economy.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I have but a few brief words, to draw the attention of the House to my point of view on Bill C-129.
I shall be short so that the government can pass another bill this evening, if possible. I think that Bill C-129 is certainly in the interest of farmers, and I congratulate the minister for having introduced it; it will give more money
April 18, 1973

to the provinces and enable them to provide farmers with a more adequate insurance program.
I should, however, like to ask the minister to introduce next year a bill to provide more adequate insurance for farmers.
I was an insurance salesman for some years, and sold crop insurance during the first two years of this program.
I was greatly dissatisfied to see that when a farmer had suffered a loss, too large a proportion of his loss was not covered by the insurance.
I believe the act provides for 80 per cent loss coverage of volume and 80 per cent of value.
Thus, a farmer who should harvest 100 tons of hay does not get a penny if he harvests 80.
I suggest that is one of the main reasons why farmers, those of Quebec particularly, do not avail themselves of the Crop Insurance Act.
Any settlement for a loss starts off by deducting 20 per cent of the insured amount, and another 20 per cent for security coverage, as compared to the value of the crop. I consider this is very unfair to the producer unless the act is amended next year-the minister just told me he agrees with me-we will still have farmers not availing themselves of its provisions.
Mr. Speaker, insurance is designed to protect people liable to accidents. With regard to car insurance, that is right, but with regard to crop insurance, the government goes further than that. If the crop loss is predictable six, seven or eight months before hand, the farmer is not insurable, whether he pays premiums or not.
Therefore, the Crop Insurance Act does not operate the same way as ordinary insurance. An accident is something that cannot be foreseen, it is purely and simply an act of God. However, crop insurance goes much further. Crop incurance can be figured out up to one year beforehand, for instance, in the case of hay losses due to frost.
I think that crop insurance should also provide 100 per cent coverage when grain is destroyed by hail storms. At the present time, crop insurance covers only 60 per cent of such a loss, and only after the crop has been harvested or is ready for harvesting. This means that if on my 10 acres I have barley starting to ripen-barley falls readily when the wind blows-and then there is hail storm, I lose about 35 per cent of my crops, because I have to leave it there and wait for those inspectors to come. When they come, half the fallen grain has rotten on the ground and I am left with nothing.
I have paid premiums, I send for my broker, Mr. Leonel Beaudoin. I blame him but in fact he is not the one responsible, since the program does not cover the crop adequately against an actual loss and this is very detrimental to the producer.
These are the only remarks I have to make. I reiterate my congratulations to the minister and also to the government for having appointed a minister for Eastern Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Before I recognize the minister I wish to inform hon. members
Judges Act
that if the minister speaks at this time, he will be closing the debate.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to make my remarks lengthy. I just want to make a few comments on some of the things which have been said in the debate, and I wish to make it clear that PFAA is to be terminated. I would not want to build any false hopes for farm producers in western Canada who may think that that program would take the place of crop insurance. Crop insurance is still their best buy today. That is the best form of insurance to guard against total losses from which they may possibly suffer. Crop insurance sales for this year already have surpassed those for last year. In the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan the authorities are putting out a real sales effort to increase coverage and to take advantage of our proposed legislation. They are counting on this legislation being passed.
I have been criticized for making all the speeches I have made across Canada, yet I doubt if there is one in which I did not mention crop insurance and ask for suggestions from farmers, farm leaders across this country and even from politicians. I wanted them to make suggestions as to how we could improve the crop insurance plan. One could compare what I have been doing with building a road. When you build a road, you first make a survey, then build the base, pave the road, and allow people to use it. That is what I tried to do with crop insurance. I wanted to make sure that this and other legislation will be beneficial to agricultural producers. I am sure they all realize that is what all those speeches I have been making were about. I wanted to ascertain from the farmers of Canada their views on our legislation. That is what I have been doing. I have been ascertaining farmers' views, and I think this course of action will pay dividends for agriculture in the long run.
I do not think there is much more that I can say. Let me say this to the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight). I guess what I am about to suggest is not so old fashioned. We should pray a little for rain. That will not hurt us at all. We can also pray for good weather, because the whole world is counting on North American farmers, on North American cereal producers, to produce the food that the world needs this year. So, it will not hurt us one bit to pray for good weather. Let me end by saying, Mr. Speaker, Happy Easter.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.

Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice) moved: that Bill C-177, to amend the Judges Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will make only a few remarks in view of the co-operative attitude of hon. members, which I

April 18, 1973
Judges Act
appreciate very much, and which will facilitate sending this bill to the committee.
The bill before us would authorize additional salaries for judicial positions involving 15 judges throughout the provinces of Canada and additional positions as well as salaries with respect to four judges in the case of the federal court. In view of the increase in the workload in the federal court, there is a requirement for these judges to be available in order to keep up with appeals which may reach that court and with applications which may reach it in connection with a variety of boards and tribunals.
With respect to the 15 judges throughout the provinces, the legislation matches the positions which have been created by provincial legislation. The positions have been created in accordance with the judgment of the various attorneys-general of the provinces, as confirmed by our own investigations with respect to requirements and needs.
In this bill we are adding an additional feature in the creation of a group of potential salaries that will be available for matching with future positions that may be created by the provinces. We want thereby to be in the position to move relatively expeditiously when it appears that there is a need for an additional judicial position as determined, as usual, by the judgment in the first instance of the provincial attorney-general, after which we can make the necessary appointment in order to expedite the handling of judicial matters which are so important to all our citizens.
The additional feature in the bill is an amendment to the supernumerary provisions which were introduced in the last amendment to the Judges Act. Here, we propose to recognize the desirability on occasion of making it possible for judges who have reached the age of 65 and who have served for at least 15 years in the court to move into the supernumerary category and thereby, although no longer being called on to assume a complete load of work, to be available still at the call of the chief justice to serve the court and, therefore, to further expedite justice. It seems, in view of the younger appointments which have been made, that it is appropriate to move the supernumerary provisions in that direction. We must recognize that, on occasion, judges who have reached that age may find it most desirable to remove themselves from the necessity to carry a full load. Under these provisions, however, they are still to be available to the court to do a portion of the work, as the chief justice may find suitable. I commend the bill to members and its study in committee for the facilitation of judicial causes throughout the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, this is an example of allocation of time by consent, a consent that I am very glad to facilitate on behalf of our party.
As the minister said, the purpose is very simple, namely to add certain judicial positions and salaries to the federal, provincial and county courts. We are not discussing jurisdiction. If we had been, perhaps many of us would have wanted to speak at a little greater length.

I think the minister agrees that some of the terminology now in the bill does not make very much sense in modern times. My own province of New Brunswick has to all intents and purposes abolished the word "county". I agree it is up to the provincial legislatures to make the changes to their statutes to accommodate this. However, I am always struck by the anomaly in contemporary times of having this divided jurisdiction, that is county or district judges and Supreme Court judges. I hope we will soon move to the position where there will be a supreme court or a superior court. As a matter of fact, I think this division goes back to the days when travel was difficult. It was a good idea to have an identifiable justice near the scene of litigation, so to speak. Nowadays, there is much more mobility and flexibility. Perhaps some of the problems would be overcome if we moved from the provincial courts straight to the supreme or superior court of the particular province.
I commend the minister for clause 10. I think it is an excellent idea. It will mean that the provinces will not be at the beck and call of this institution when they feel they need additional judges. Except for one or two days of emergency debate last September, we had the experience of not having a parliament from June to January and the minister vying with other ministers to get his legislation considered by parliament. This additional judge provision in clause 10 will give the minister and the provinces a needed flexibility. It is interesting that it has taken so long to think up what seems to me to be a rather sensible and simple proposal.
I hope the government, particularly the minister, will look at a bill standing in my name which discusses in statutory form the matter of judges taking on additional duties. I am in no way to be understood as commenting on the very special work being done by the Law Reform Commission. However, I have long felt that if governments could avoid making judges sort of whipping boys on rather difficult labour negotiations, conciliations, arbitrations and so on, the country and the independent judiciary would be better served. It has been a curious thing about our development of jurisprudence that we have always gone to the judges. We have the other place with very distinguished Senators and people in the academic community and many other walks of life who could fulfil this independent role that is so essential and at the same time move judges out of the hurly-burly of things that may have political overtones.
We will be glad to help move along the bill and will await its more deliberative discussion or examination in the committee.


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, will attempt to be as brief as possible. We support the bill. We wish to expedite its passage here today so that it can go to committee for a more detailed discussion.
We particularly welcome it because we know something about the backlog of trials that have accumulated, both in the federal courts and in the courts of the provinces. I checked the situation in my province of British Columbia today. If you set down a trial in the Supreme Court today, you are given a date in February, 1974. That assumes all the pleadings have been done to this point. With regard to divorces, in my city of New Westminster, no uncontested
April 18,1973	_________________COMMONS DEBATES_________________________________________________3445
divorces can be set down until the fall. That indicates the need for additional judges in this country. It certainly gives emphasis to the old saying about justice delayed is justice denied.
There are many methods that can be considered to facilitate the disposition of trials in this country. I am still concerned about the fact that court house facilities are not used during two months of the year. I realize this is not the responsibility of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), but I am hopeful that he will urge upon his provincial counterparts consideration of the whole question of the use of facilities so we can get to the point where they are used year round. Holidays can be staggered. There would not be any problem for lawyers or judges.
I realize appointments are made upon recommendation from the provincial attorneys-general, but four new county court judges are being appointed in the province of British Columbia. Some time ago there was a move to abolish the county court in my province and have only a superior trial jurisdiction, a supreme court. That seemed to be eminently sensible.
When one examines the jurisdiction of a county court in British Columbia, he will find that it has a monetary jurisdiction of $3,000 on the civil side. However, on the criminal side, it is given the right to sentence a person to life imprisonment. I submit that is a very poor allocation of responsibility. Surely one court of trial jurisdiction, with one court dealing with small debts claims, would more expediciously serve the public's legal business. I also wish to comment on speeding up the process of file procedure. The provincial law reform commissions are all presently studying ways to improve procedure. I know the minister is interested in seeing that process sped along, because that would be another way to make improvements.
The mystical process of judicial appointments continues. I am hopeful that appointments will be made on a non-partisan basis. I hope that members, regardless of their political affiliation, are all being considered for appointment to the bench. I take some satisfaction from the fact there have been a few appointments from the New Democratic Party. I think there have been too few, but nevertheless, it seems to be a step in the right direction. It is an indication that the government is being a little more broad-minded on the subject than in the past.
I want to close with a comment made by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) this morning. He said the significant thing about this bill is at least the number of judges that will be appointed will reduce the number of judges in the country. As a lawyer, I say that facetiously. In any event, we hope the passage of this bill will be expedited.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Aeronautics Act
[ Translation]

Jean Marchand: that Bill C-128, to amend the Aeronautics Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
He said: Mr. Speaker, for ihe last few years, practices which are not only wrong but even criminal have developed especially in airports. What used to be a dangerous means of transportation in itself, because travelling in the air always involves the possibility of an accident, has become even more dangerous.
Today we know that certain groups or individuals use this means of transportation for illegal purposes, or in an attempt to get things that they cannot obtain otherwise. In other words, some groups, perhaps less in Canada than in Europe-but it will probably come to that in our country as well-resort to threats against passengers or aircraft crews in order to obtain either money or the discharge of prisoners, or for political purposes.
Highjackers usually threaten either the stewardess or the pilots and if they do not get what they are asking for, they of course threaten to blow up the aircraft or force it to make for another airport than that of destination. For a few years, these tactics have developed to such an extent that they represent a real danger.
A few months ago, Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity of meeting not only the presidents of the big Canadian airline companies but with those of regional companies to see what could be done before Bill C-128, which is now before us, may be amended, so that we have authority to act in this area.
Now, Mr. Speaker, under the law, the only power that exists is that of the air carriers, the airlines, to refuse access to their planes to a passenger who has a ticket if this passenger will not agree to a certain check. The federal government, the RCMP, or any other agency that we could empower does not have the power to search people and their luggage, nor to prevent them from boarding a plane. The airlines alone, under a contract that appears on the reverse of the ticket-a contract written in print so small that hardly Vi per cent of Canadians manage to decipher it-reserve themselves the right to refuse a passenger, without conditions.
It is under that power of the companies, Mr. Speaker, that we can now search passengers. In Canada, at all major airports, as you know, there are security agents searching people and luggage to prevent anybody from coming aboard a plane with offensive weapons, whether it be firearms, knives or explosives.
Of course, that method is of rather limited efficiency and we would like to be in a position to systematize the searching of passengers by granting the strict right of searching people and luggage when there are reasonable grounds to believe that someone might be trying to come aboard and threaten to divert the plane or even threaten the lives of people aboard.

April 18, 1973
Aeronautics Act
That is the purpose, Mr. Speaker, of Bill C-128. We now have an arrangement and it was agreed with the airlines that it would be temporary, that is to say that the companies expected that by the end of March we would be in a position to take the responsibility as a government, to search individuals and luggage when necessary at airports. We also want major airports to be protected physically, that is by fences, to prevent anybody from coming in either to threaten the lives of people and to board a plane to threaten the pilot or the passengers.
Bill C-128 is nothing new. That power is being given by the federal government. As to the way we proceed there are all sorts of complications, one of them being cost. Of course, airlines are not interested in paying for the wages of the security officers who must search people and luggage. We are studying how we may share these costs, and the experience of these last two or three months will probably show us how to distribute these costs between the federal government and airline companies.
Some people might fear that the federal government or its agencies may abuse this power. Of course, each time such a power is granted to the government, there is a danger of misuse but if we are asking for this power, it is for a reason. A very small number of Canadians are opposed to it. As far as I am concerned, I have never been informed that people object to being searched. Canadians know that we act this way not to impinge on their freedom, but to protect their fundamental freedom, their lives.
That is the reason of the search and we do not want to perpetuate the present system, because it is essentially temporary and has been voluntarily accepted by the airlines. At present, they defray the costs, but we think that under the Aeronautics Act, the federal government should have such powers.
The R.C.M.P. is training people especially to perform this work. Officers will thus be assigned to airports and they will try to prevent the persons I referred to earlier from boarding the aircraft. It is clear that they will not achieve 100 per cent success; perhaps other accidents will occur in the future, but what we are trying to do is to decrease their number so that Canadians or foreigners travelling aboard Canadian aircraft will enjoy maximum security.
Eventually, if this results in a certain amount of abuse, we know that we could use other democratic methods; the Parliament is in Ottawa, the members of Parliament and the government are still there. We will try to prevent any abuse if ever some occur. We are now giving special training to avoid harassment so that inconvenience does not result in provocation or an untolerable embarrassment for all passengers.
Mr. Speaker, that is the purpose of Bill C-128; we are only confirming what is done at the present time to maintain the procedure, but in a better way through specially trained agents.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister would agree that there is still something pretty good about the fact that searches, no 
matter whether they are for our safety or for the safety of others, have to be by statute and not by government fiat or some sort of administrative decision. I think this is a very reassuring and comforting thing about this issue. Once again, though, we find ourselves in contemporary times really having to revert to the middle ages, and the highwayman of stagecoach days has become, if I can say so, the sky way man of the jet age.
Speaking personally, I am particularly glad that most of us being searched are still somewhat embarrassed by the whole procedure, still uncomfortable about it and still not sure whether to say please or thank you when the geiger-counter goes up and down various layers of largesse, speaking personally. I think this, too, is a healthy sign and I would hate to see the day when this embarrassment about the whole search process becomes somewhat institutionalized in our system with officials, rather than being embarrassed as they search, becoming officious and grim faced, with us just thinking this is one more routine procedure. I, for one, will never accept the fact that it is a routine procedure to be searched because I want to go from this parliament to my constituency, or some other Canadian or anybody else wants to go around the world on his private business or private occasion, to put it more eloquently or elegantly. I am glad, therefore, that the minister has to bring this issue before us in the form of a statute and that we have to debate it.
Some may think the line I have taken is on the philosophical side. I do not intend it to be. I rather think it is one of the ironies of our age that we have the technical ability to get from point "A" to point "B" rather quickly, but we have not yet found a way to do it safely because of the vagaries of other people in the world. Earlier, I raised the civil liberties matter, and whether the searchers might be persuaded, and perhaps that is not the right word, or fall into the trap of carrying out a sort of general fishing expedition. Really, what they are doing is insuring our safety; they are not vetting our reading material, and I hope they are not looking for other things. There are other methods that can be used by the police and law enforcement agencies.
This is an inconvenience about which we are all slightly embarrassed but that we accept, I suppose, with the rather selfish idea that the safety of many of us and our fellows is involved. Speaking personally, and I hope others would agree, I hope that we will always be nervous about it and slightly embarrassed, because when we take it as routine then I think we will have lost a very precious part of our liberty.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) pointed out, just at a time when technicians seemed to have assured reasonable safety in the air, at least from a mechanical point of view, we find ourselves faced with this tragedy of air piracy and other threats to the lives of those who travel by air. The result is that some method does seem to be necessary to protect the safety of passengers and flight personnel, and on that basis we are prepared to agree to second reading of this bill so it can be referred to the appropriate standing committee.
I am particularly pleased that the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) made the statement he
April 18, 1973

has just given to the House. It is good to remind ourselves, as the hon. member said, that even for our own safety we cannot be searched or put to other forms of embarrassment without there being a legal basis for it. We understand that there is such a basis for the searches which are being made at the present time, but this legislation is to make it possible in respect of all passenger aircraft in Canada. It is also to provide the necessary legal basis for any costs that may be involved, if that becomes necessary.
Sir, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal has said what needed to be said on this occasion, and with that we would be quite happy to let this bill have second reading at this time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
April 13, 1973-Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs of Bill C-176, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Official Secrets Act-the Minister of Justice.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps if I can spin it out my point will be met. We did agree to give the minister an opportunity to start this measure, but is there any point in starting it now?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have been waiting for 30 years to be speaking when the knock came on the door.


Thomas Miller Bell: They will take you away one day, Stan.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, may I just mention to the House while we are waiting that when we resume following the Easter adjournment we might consider on the first day the bill to which we were about to give second read-
Aeronautics Act
ing, wiretapping, to be followed by an act respecting wildlife, the fisheries development act and then CNR financing. These bills might ease the House gradually into the more controversial items that may be coming later.


Thomas Miller Bell: Is there any word about corporate taxation?


Mr. Paproski:: What makes you think we will be back after Easter?



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And being returned:	,
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following bills:
Bill C-172, an act to amend the Customs Tariff-Chapter No. 10.
Bill C-130, an act to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act-Chapter No. 11.
Bill C-171, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act-Chapter No. 12.
Bill C-3, an act to amend the Export Development Act-Chapter No. 13.
Bill C-170, an act to amend the statute law relating to income tax-Chapter No. 14.
Bill C-178, an act to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act.-Chapter No. 15.
["May I remind hon. members that they are invited to call on the Speaker when we adjourn in a moment.\nPursuant to special order made on April 17, 1973, this House stands adjourned until Monday, May 7 at 2 p.m.\nAt six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order."]
Mr. Speaker:: May I remind hon. members that they are invited to call on the Speaker when we adjourn in a moment.
Pursuant to special order made on April 17, 1973, this House stands adjourned until Monday, May 7 at 2 p.m.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.