1973-06-27

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2) I would like to table in the two official languages the study by the government of Canada of the decision given on March 30, 1973 by the Canadian Transport Commission concerning Bell Canada's Request "A".
[ English]


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand that the minister has sought to table the decision of the government with regard to the suspension of certain rate increases granted by the Canadian Transport Commission to Bell Canada, which the minister announced on April 6 were suspended by the government. I wish to protest as vigorously as I can the fact that the minister has simply tabled the document instead of making a statement to the House. I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that on April 2 there was a debate on a Standing Order 26 motion which I moved, and the decision of the government to suspend the increases granted by the CTC was announced by the minister in a statement to the House on April 6.
I see no reason in the world, other than a desire not to permit other members of the House to comment, why he could not make a statement today. Even if the statement he has tabled is long and he does not want to read it all, surely he could have summarized it and told us on his feet what the decision of the government is on this matter instead of merely tabling a document without giving members of the House an opportunity to comment on it, particularly when it was important enough for the government to suspend the increases on April 6.
I do not usually rise on points of order suggesting that people are flouting the rights of the House, but if this matter was important enough for the minister to have announced on April 6 the decision of the government to suspend the increases granted by the CTC, it is important enough for him to rise to his feet in the House today and announce the decision of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Speak up like a man.


David Lewis: It is surely a lack' of courage as well as a lack of propriety to use Standing Order 41(2) merely to table a document.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I do not accept the allegations and even less the accusations made by the hon. member. I believe that my only reason for tabling this document is the wish to abide by your oft-repeated instructions to us, Mr. Speaker, namely that statements on motions should be brief and legible.
Furthermore, I am certain that if I had tabled a brief statement, the hon. member who has just spoken would certainly have complained of the dearth of explanations by the government on such an important decision.
The document I have just tabled is not only longer than usual, not for the sake of fancy but of efficiency, it also contains statistical tables which I can hardly see myself reading in a statement on motions.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order which has been raised may I ask Your Honour to consider at least one precedent. Since we did not know this was coming up I have not had the time to look it up, but Your Honour will recall an occasion a few years ago when the then Minister of Finance, the Hon. E. J. Benson, sought to table a document the effect of which was to give one side of an argument with no opportunity for reply. I submit that is what is happening in this case. A document called a review of the government's position has been tabled. I suspect it is the government's side of the argument. In view of the fact this matter was discussed on two days, as indicated by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), I do not think the Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier) should be permitted on this occasion to operate under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2).


Mr. Speaker:: The point of order raised by the hon. member for York South and supported by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is, of course, of interest. I recall very well the incident and precedent to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre alluded. Obviously there are two separate Standing Orders. Standing Order 15(3) provides for statements on motions and makes it possible for members speaking on behalf of parties in opposition to the government to make comments. Standing Order 41(2) states that a minister of the Crown, or a parliamentary secretary acting on behalf of a minister, may in his place in the House state that he

June 27, 1973
Fisheries
proposes to lay upon the table of the House any report or other paper dealing with a matter coming within the administrative responsibilities of the government.
I assume that the point of view taken by the minister is that he is placing on the table of the House under the terms of Standing Order 41(2) a paper which relates to the administrative responsibilities of the government. At the same time, I remember the objection I had on a previous occasion to a minister tabling under the terms of Standing Order 41(2) what in effect would be a ministerial statement. It may be that this is a use of the wrong Standing Order and that another procedure, rather than tabling the document, might be to make a statement. I, of course, do not know what is contained in the document tabled by the minister. If hon. members feel strongly enough about the matter, perhaps we might hold it in abeyance and determine after further examination of the matter whether the minister in due course might be invited either to make a statement on motions or to distribute the statement in some way other than under the terms of Standing Order 41(2).


FISHERIES
Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members who are concerned about the future of the fishery in the Northwest Atlantic will know that the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries recently concluded its twenty-third annual meeting in Copenhagen.
There was universal concern about the depletion of fish stocks in the North Atlantic. Canada argued that all species in all areas be harvested on a sustained yield basis. This idea received widespread support. Canada also urged that the coastal state be given first claim on the catch. Iceland supported this concept, but other European countries, while recognizing a measure of preference for the coastal state, were unwilling to admit an unlimited claim on Canada's part.
Actually, when it came to the negotiations in detail, sub area by sub area and species by species, Canada did very well indeed. We were allocated 100 million pounds more fish than we took in 1973. In 1974 we will, therefore, be able to take this additional catch in areas where Canadian fishermen have fished for years and where they will be able to take up an increased quota.
There was a trade-off. The Canadian allocation was reduced in certain other areas where we have not fished in the past and in respect of species like silver hake which Canadian fishermen have not taken in any quantity.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a series of figures which outline, by area and by species, Canadian allocations for 1973 and 1974 together with the total allowable catch for all countries for this year and next. This data indicates that, because Canada is a coastal state, we will be able to expand our fishing effort over the next 18 months.

During the conference an impasse developed between the United States and certain other members of ICNAF concerning the depleted fish stocks in convention waters off the New England coast. The United States proposed an over-all reduction in the fishing effort in the order of 25 per cent. Canada, recognizing both the complexity of the fishery and the need for a further limitation of effort, suggested a special meeting of the commission in September in order to resolve these difficulties. This meeting has now been scheduled.
We have by no means solved all of our difficulties in the North Atlantic but Canada, as the principle coastal state, has gained a great deal. The principle of sustained yield cropping has now been accepted by all members of ICNAF. Also, Canadian fishermen are obtaining a larger share of the over-all catch as a result of these deliberations.
I would like to table the relevant data, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House welcome the statement made by the Minister of Fisheries today concerning the annual meeting of the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries. I am sure that the fishermen of Atlantic Canada will be pleased to learn that we were allocated 100 million pounds more fish for 1974 in the ICNAF areas than was the case in 1973. However, these fish must be caught, and from the statistics supplied by the minister's department it is apparent that the annual catch of fish in Atlantic Canada is declining, which is a matter of great concern to the people of our area. In fact, the cumulative landings in the maritime provinces during the first four months of 1973 totalled 133 million pounds. Statistics for the similar period of 1972 were 139 million pounds, and for 1971, 232 million pounds. So it is quite evident that we are in need of the additional protection which I hope the agreement as read by the minister will provide to Atlantic Canada.
I believe that one section of the minister's statement is worth emphasizing, namely, that Canada urged that the coastal state be given first claim on the fish catch, a concept which received the support of Iceland but nevertheless did not receive the over-all support of other European countries. In other words, Iceland is willing to support our position on this matter, and it is regrettable that Canada did not take the same stand when Iceland endeavoured to secure, on September 1, 1972, fishing limits off her country extending 50 miles off the coast.
I also note in the minister's statement that there was a trade-off. He said:
The Canadian allocation was reduced in certain other areas where we have not fished in the past and in respect of species like silver hake which Canadian fishermen have not taken in any quantity.
I cannot help but wonder why this was necessary. I seriously question whether Canadian fishermen will welcome the news that the government has once again made an accommodation with foreign interests by trading away fishing rights which, after all, originally belonged to the fishermen of Atlantic Canada.
June 27, 1973


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I also note this statement by the minister:
During the conference an impasse developed between the United States and certain other members of ICNAF concerning the depleted fish stocks in convention waters off the New England coast.
Obviously this is understandable, for sophisticated fishing fleets from other nations are taking bigger and bigger catches. It is obvious that the 12-mile limit is not working in Canada. It is obvious that it is not working along the New England coast.
The minister said that we have by no means solved all of our difficulties in the North Atlantic. This has to be the understatement of the day. The main question is how some 132 nations will respond to proposals for the proper use of the world's oceans and control of the continental shelf. This is certainly the most important and the most underrated issue of our times. At stake in this matter are fishing and mineral rights and pollution and navigational control, all of which, in our view, should be vested in the coastal state. This is a responsibility that we must have.
I submit that our position on this matter when we appear before the next Law of the Sea Conference should be made abundantly clear. There should be no doubt left that we claim the right to mineral and fishing exploration on our continental shelf and slope, whether this extends 200 miles or goes beyond that limit. It should be our responsibility to manage these resources wherever and whenever they may be found on our continental shelf and slope.


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to say we appreciate the fact that the minister provided us with a copy of his statement somewhat in advance of the opening of the House. I suppose I should also say that we are pleased to accept gratefully such crumbs of information as the minister has given us in his statement on motions. This in itself is a rather rare event in the House. I have never quite been able to decide whether it is because the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) keeps a tight thumb down on the minister or whether the reason is the minister's own natural shyness about making statements in the House, so seldom do we hear any announcement from him.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think I must interrupt the hon. member to remind him that according to the terms of the Standing Order his comments should refer to the statement made by the minister. I also take this opportunity of reminding hon. members that the Standing Order does have the requirement that comments made by members in opposition should be brief.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I must apologize, Mr. Speaker, if I have transgressed the rules of the House. There is really so little to say about the statement itself that I felt I could not avoid at least drawing this rare event to the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Nevertheless, I am glad the minister has made this statement to the House, and I hope that we will hear important announcements of policy from him in this way on future occasions.
Farm Improvement Loans
The minister has indicated that we have achieved a somewhat larger quota under ICNAF in the North Atlantic. If I read correctly the figures the minister tabled, he is talking in terms of tons. In his statement he makes a great show of the fact that we will have an extra 100 million pounds over what we have at the present time. My arithmetic translates this into 50,000 tons, which is the equivalent of a quota for what was considered a relatively minor herring fishery on the Pacific coast last year. So I do not feel that we should go overboard in agreeing that this represents any great breakthrough as far as Canada is concerned.
Like the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse), I think our eyes should be on what this may mean in respect of the Law of the Sea Conference. If it means anything it means that Canada, in international councils, should be pressing much more vigorously than in the past for recognition of our jurisdiction over the resources of the continental shelf. In this connection, I again stress this point for the ear of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp). In so far as the meeting reported upon by the minister does represent some progress in the recognition of the management of the resources of the North Atlantic fishery, to that extent we are glad to have this report from the minister. I hope we will have further statements from him from time to time which will perhaps reveal more significant developments than this statement does.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, we must of course be glad for the gains made at the annual meeting mentioned in the minister's statement.
Mr. Speaker, I would, nevertheless, like to take this opportunity to stress the importance of Canada's being very firm at these meetings so as to prevent excessive exploitation of our territorial waters by foreigners. In my opinion, there should be increased surveillance since we know quite well that many foreign fishing vessels enter Canadian waters, even the Gulf of St. Lawrence, for example.
We should be glad for the gains of which the minister has spoken, but on the other hand we must continue to stand firm at these meetings, to safeguard Canada's full authority in its territorial waters. Though Providence has granted us an abundance of fish, that does not mean that we should swallow the bait too.


FINANCE
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 43 I rise on a matter of urgency, particularly in my riding of Prince George-Peace River. It concerns the refusal of the chartered banks to make loans to farmers under the terms of the Farm Improvement Loans Act despite the assurances of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) to the House on June 5 and again on June 15 that preference in allocation of

June 27, 1973
Inquiry on Expropriations
credit is given to farmers, fishermen and small businessmen in slow growth areas. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin):
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately investigate the allocation of credit by chartered banks to farmers.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion of the hon. member was moved under the terms of Standing Order 43 and requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is not unanimous consent, the motion of the hon. member cannot be put.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to present a motion under Standing Order 43 which is of urgent concern to 2,500 teachers in the employ of the federal government. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House urges the Treasury Board to withdraw its application for the establishment of a conciliation board in the case of the negotiations between the Treasury Board on the one hand and the 1,600 teachers and other education personnel with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the 900 language teachers and education services specialists with the Public Service Commission on the other, so that the collective bargaining process may continue with a view to the reaching of a satisfactory settlement that will enable these employees at least to keep up with the rise in the cost of living.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion also requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


AIRPORTS
René Matte: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion.

In view of the equivocal if not fraudulent methods used to settle expropriations for the Mirabel airport, and of the fact that a large number of owners are now categorically refusing to give in to political pressures and sign an agreement, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin):
That instruction be given for an immediate inquiry to be held with a view to revising all expropriations concluded to date and settling pending expropriations to do justice to the citizens concerned, and that the report of the commission of inquiry serve as the basis for final negotiations.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; the motion of the hon. member cannot therefore be put.

[ English]


TRANSPORT
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity and I request the unanimous consent of the House.
In view of the fact the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) has announced imminent finalization of selective increases in westbound freight rate subsidies for the assistance of Atlantic region shippers in reaching the central Canadian market, and in view of the fact the economic growth of northern Ontario is greatly retarded by discriminatory freight rates on manufactured goods shipped into and out of northern Ontario, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom):
That this House instruct the Minister of Transport to immediately enter into negotiations with the province of Ontario for the establishment of selective increases in freight rate subsidies for northern Ontario.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.
June 27, 1973


AMENDMENT OF STANDING ORDERS RESPECTING SUPPLY MOTIONS-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 to request the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion concerning a very urgent and important matter.
Indeed, it deals with amendments to the Standing Orders so as to prevent in future the confusion which existed in the House last evening in connection with supply motions. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette):
That this House instruct the Committee on Procedure and Organization to consider the Standing Orders concerning supply motions and to suggest necessary amendments so that from now on, the procedure will be clearer and more specific in this regard.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; therefore the motion cannot be put.


SMALL BUSINESSES LOANS ACT
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-205, to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the explanation of this bill might also be taken to apply to the two other bills standing in my name so I will not take up the time of the House by dealing with each one separately. The purpose of these three bills, to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act, the Farm Improvement Loans Act and the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, is to provide that the interest rate applicable to guaranteed loans made under these acts will be fixed at not more than 6 per cent, that the banks and other lending institutions shall be required by law to make available funds for loans under these acts in not less than the highest amount they have lent in previous years, that the Minister of Finance may require lending institutions to make more money available for loans under these acts if there is insufficient money available, and also to provide that farmers, small businessmen and fishermen shall have the right of appeal to the minister if their requests for loans are turned down.
Order Paper Questions


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

Frank Howard: for leave to introduce Bill C-206, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act.


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

Frank Howard: for leave to introduce Bill C-207, to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Holmes: 1.	(a) What are the names and addresses of the pharmaceutical companies in Canada who produced amphetamines and its salts or the congeners, benzphetamine and its salts, methamphetamine and its salts and phendimetrazine and its salts for each year 1965 to 1972 (b) what was the generic and trade name for each company and the amount produced for each year 1965 to 1972 (c) what was the quantity of each drug marketed in Canada and exported by the individual companies, and to what country was it exported in each year 1965 to 1972 (d) what were the names of the amphetamines or the congeners imported for each year 1965 to 1972 (e) what are the names of the pharmaceutical companies and the countries exporting amphetamines or its congeners to Canada and the quantity exported to Canada by the individual companies for each year 1965 to 1972?
2.	What measures are taken by the government to ensure the privacy and confidentiality of the reports sent to the Bureau of Dangerous Drugs?
3.	What arrangements have been made, if any, by the Department of National Health and Welfare and the provincial medical licensing bodies to ensure the enforcement of the regulations?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Such information is considered to be confidential in that it would be unwise if certain elements of our society should learn the location of fairly large quanti-

June 27, 1973
Order Paper Questions
ties of controlled drug material. However, this information is available and will be loaned to the hon. member if he so wishes.
2.	All information submitted to the Bureau of Dangerous Drugs is kept in the strictest confidence. Under no circumstances is such material ever released except in accordance with Sections 37 and 41 of the Narcotic Control Regulations, and Section G.03.017 under Part III of the Food and Drug Regulations (Controlled Drug Regulations).
3.	Both the Narcotic Control Regulations and the Controlled Drug Regulations provide authority for reporting to a practitioner's Provincial Licensing Body information that might be gathered by the Bureau of Dangerous Drugs under the provisions of the Regulations, together with any other information considered relevant. The department has a close liaison with all Provincial Medical Licensing bodies. Where there is evidence that a practitioner may be misusing narcotic or controlled drugs, or prescribing them contrary to the provisions of the regulations, corrective action is taken in consultation with the Medical Licensing Body, either jointly, by one body alone, or by each body separately, depending on the circumstances.


Mr. Stackhouse: 1.	Does the Minister of State for Urban Affairs intend to foreclose CMHC mortgages on the five Ontario co-operative colleges known as Neill Wycik, Rochdale, Pestalozzi, Ebrond and Waterloo?
2.	What mortgages does CMHC hold on each of these colleges?
3.	How much is each in arrears in payment?
4.	Does the Minister intend to initiate a study of the capital financing of the five colleges?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: 1. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has commenced foreclosure proceedings on Rochdale College and Pestalozzi only. The general mortgage administration policy of CMHC is that, where a mortgagor makes representations to CMHC that arrears are caused by financial conditions beyond his control, the borrower is encouraged to provide full details of his problems. Each case is considered on its merits, and the Corporation offers such assistance as is possible. Foreclosure action is taken only when all other possible alternatives for resolving the mortgage arrears have been considered and a solution has not been found. When default in mortgage payments occurs on loans for multiple housing projects under Sections 58, 15, and 47 of the National Housing Act, CMHC discusses the arrears problem with the mortgagor, and reviews the specific situation in an effort to arrive at a viable solution. Foreclosure action is commenced as a last resort only when all other possible alternatives for resolving the arrears problem have been considered and a solution has not been found: (a) Rochdale College-CMHC solicitors issued a Writ of Foreclosure on August 17, 1971, claiming foreclosure, suit on the covenant and possession. Due to the fact that the action for foreclosure and possession was opposed by Revenue Properties Central Developments Ltd., a secondary encumbrancer, and by Rochdale College, the owners, the main foreclosure action has not yet come to trial. The pleadings have been completed, filed and served. As an interim measure, and at the suggestion

of the federal government, the Supreme Court of Ontario appointed Clarkson Co. Ltd. as Interim Receiver and Manager of Rochdale College on September 14, 1972; (b) Pestalozzi College-the Writ of Foreclosure, Statement of Claim, Statements of Defence and Counter-Claim, and Reply and Counter-Claim to one of the defences, have been filed and served. Due to the fact that the action for foreclosure and possession was opposed by the defendants, the foreclosure action has not yet come to trial. The parties to the action have concurred to appoint Mr. Joseph Ginsberg, Chartered Accountant, as the Receiver. It is anticipated that the appointment will be confirmed by the Supreme Court of Ontario in June.
2 and 3.	Balance	
	outstanding at	Arrears
	December 31,	December 31,
Project	1972	1972
(a) Waterloo Co-operative		
Residences Inc.	$ 410,743	$ Nil
(b) Waterloo Co-operative		
Residences Inc.	2,184,440	70,036.00Rochdale College	5,632,810	854,659.00Neill Wycik College	5,218,577	56,516.00Elrond College	2,133,952	NilPestalozzi College	6,669,144	519,485.334.	CMHC does not intend to initiate a study of the capital financing of the five colleges. Loans for student housing projects are made under Section 47 of the National Housing Act, to provinces, municipalities and their agencies, hospitals, school boards, co-operative associations and charitable corporations. The approval of such a loan is subject to the prior concurrence of the province in which the project is located. Priorities for the utilization of such funds as are provided in the Corporation's capital budget are established by each province in respect of the funds allotted to it. The majority of loans under Section 47 have been made to universities and colleges for housing accommodation on campus, or lands which are owned by these institutions. Loans made off campus have, for the most part, been made to co-operative associations, the largest number of these being made to small co-operative groups for the purchase and conversion of existing dwellings for student accommodation.


Mr. Laprise: 1.	What were the actual profits or losses by Canadian National Railways for operating their Quebec-Senneterre-Cochrane passenger service, for each year from 1962 to 1972 inclusive?
2.	What were the actual profits or losses by Canadian National Railways for operating their Quebec-Senneterre-Cochrane freight service, for each year from 1962 to 1972 inclusive?
Hort. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport): The
management of Canadian National Railways advises: 1. Pursuant to Sections 260 and 261 of the Railway Act the railway is required to submit, concurrently with an application to discontinue a passenger train service, a
June 27, 1973

statement of costs and revenues of the company attributable to the carriage of passengers by the service for a five-year period. The foregoing requirement was met by the company in connection with its application for the subsidization of the train service involved and by Order No. 15534 dated December 23, 1972, the Railway Transport Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission gave notice that it had determined the said passenger train service had incurred actual losses of $2,694,978, $2,766,194 and $2,747,303 in the years 1968,	1969 and 1970,
respectively.
2.	Canadian National does not analyse its freight traffic on a train run or geographic basis since such a breakdown has no managerial significance. Statistics are taken off from time to time in the case of thin traffic density branch lines which are considered to be uneconomic and the system revenues derived from traffic originating and terminating at stations on the line under study are compared with the system avoidable costs incurred in handling this traffic in accordance with Section 253(3) of the Railway Act. In view of the type and volume of traffic being handling between the points in question such a detailed analysis does not appear justified at this time and to extract the data would entail considerable time and expense.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): 1.	What were the actual operating profits or losses of the
Canadian	National	Railways	on	the	Montreal-Chambord-
Chicoutimi, the Chambord-Dolbeau-Chibougamau and the Que-bec-Chicoutimi passenger trains for each year 1962 to 1972?
2.	What were the actual operating profits or losses of the
Canadian	National	Railways	on	the	Montreal-Chambord-
Chicoutimi and Chambord-Dolbeau-Chibougamau freight trains for each year 1962 to 1972?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: The
Management of Canadian National Railways advises: 1. Pursuant to Sections 260 and 261 of the Railway Act the railway is required to submit, concurrently with an application to discontinue a passenger train service, a statement of costs and revenues of the company attributable to the carriage of passengers by the service for a five year period. The foregoing requirement was met by the company in connection with its application for subsidization of the train service involved and by order No. 15534 dated December 23, 1972, the Railway Transport Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission gave notice that it had determined the said passenger train service had incurred actual losses of $1,526,000, $1,603,932 and $1,488,342 in the years 1968, 1969 and 1970 respectively.
2.	Canadian National does not analyse its freight traffic on a train run or geographic basis since such a breakdown has no managerial significance. Statistics are taken off from time to time in the case of thin traffic density branch lines which are considered to be uneconomic and the system revenues derived from traffic originating and terminating at stations on the line under study are compared with the system avoidable costs incurred in handling this traffic in accordance with Section 253(3) of the Railway Act. In view of the type and volume of traffic being handled between the points in question such a detailed
Order Paper Questions
analysis does not appear justified at this time and to extract the data would entail considerable time and expense.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Does Air Canada act as agent and receive commissions from an insurance company without being so licensed and, if so, under what authority?
2.	Are other airlines authorized or will they be authorized to act as agents in a like manner and, if so, is this considered an invasion of the insurance field?
3.	Can the insurance industry in turn act as an airline?


Jean Marchand: The management of Air Canada and the Canadian Transport Commission advise as follows: 1. Air Canada sells travel insurance at downtown offices in all provinces of Canada except Prince Edward Island. It is licensed to do so in each case by the appropriate provincial authorities.
2.	Other airlines also act as agents. Air Canada does not consider this an invasion of the insurance field.
3.	An insurance company could operate a commercial air service only if it had the corporate power to do so and if it had an appropriate licence from the Canadian Transport Commission. No federally incorporated insurance company has this corporate power nor is it believed that any provincially incorporated company is so empowered. No insurance company is licensed by the Canadian Transport Commission to operate a commercial air service.


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


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: 1. There were 41,008 full-time employees in the Post Office Department as of January 31, 1970.
2. One hundred nine of those employees were earning more than $15,000 annually, and distributed according to
$1,000 intervals they 25 earning	were: between	15,000	and	15,99918	earning	between	16,000	and	16,99910	earning	between	17,000	and	17,99916	earning	between	18,000	and	18,99910	earning	between	19,000	and	19,9995	earning	between	20,000	and	20,9998	earning	between	21,000	and	21,9994	earning	between	22,000	and	22,9994	earning	between	23,000	and	23,9993	earning	between	24,000	and	24,9991	earning	between	25,000	and	25,999
June 27, 1973
Order Paper Questions *3 SX 2 (21,000-26,000)
*1 SX 3 (23,000-29,000)
*1 SX 4 (28,000-33,000)
3.	There were 44,532 full-time employees in the Post Office Department as of January 31, 1973.
4.	One hundred eighty-one of those employees were earning more than $18,000 annually, and distributed according to $1,000 intervals they were:
21	earning between 18,000 and 18,999 44 earning between 19,000 and 19,999 15 earning between 20,000 and 20,999
22	earning between 21,000 and 21,999 18 earning between 22,000 and 22,999
14	earning between 23,000 and 23,999
15	earning between 24,000 and 24,999 11 earning between 25,000 and 25,999
*	1 ENG 7 (21,500-27,000)
*11 SX 1 (22,000-28,000)
*	4	SX	2	(25,000-31,000)*	3	SX	3	(28,000-35,000)*	1	SX	4	(34,000-40,000)*	1	DM	2	(40,000-45,000)
* Not separated to $1,000. intervals in order to protect privacy of salary information in accordance with Treasury Board Circular 1969-206.


Mr. Stackhouse: 1.	What disciplinary actions were taken as a result of the report that inmates being transferred from Kingston to Millhaven Penitentiary received injuries caused by employees of the Canadian Penitentiary Service?
2.	How many, if any, were (a) dismissed (b) demoted (c) transferred?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: 1 and 2.
Following the disturbances at Kingston Penitentiary in April 1971 and the transfer of inmates from Kingston Penitentiary to Millhaven Institution, an investigation completely independent of the Commission of Inquiry was carried out by the Ontario Provincial Police under the direction of the Attorney General of Ontario. As a result of this investigation, charges were laid against twelve correctional officers who were subsequently tried in criminal court at which time all charges were dismissed. Additionally, the Commission of Inquiry reported upon the actions of four persons employed in a supervisory capacity by the Canadian Penitentiary Service. One of these persons resigned from the Canadian Penitentiary Service before any action was taken and has since deceased. Another person was assigned to other duties. On

further investigation, it was determined that in the cases of the third and fourth persons, the taking of disciplinary action was not justified. It is deemed inadvisable to reveal publicly the identities of the persons involved.
LIP PROJECT No. H-3018


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-3018?


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Project No. H-3018 was rejected because the Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
LIP PROJECT No. H-3205


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-3205?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Project No. H-3205 was rejected because the Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
LIP PROJECT No. H-3206


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-3206?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Project No. H-3206 was rejected because the Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
LIP PROJECT No. H-3277


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-3277?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Project No. H-3277 was rejected because the Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
LIP PROJECT No. H-3280


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-3280?
June 27, 1973


Mark R. MacGuigan: Project No. H-3280 was rejected because the Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
LIP PROJECT No. H-3428


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-3428?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Project No. H-3428 was rejected because the Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
LIP PROJECT No. H-3432


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-3432?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Project No. H-3432 was rejected because the Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
LIP PROJECT No. H-3580


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-3580?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Project No. H-3580 was rejected because the Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
LIP PROJECT No. H-3611


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-3611?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Project No. H-3611 was rejected because the Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
Order Paper Questions LIP PROJECT No. H-3653


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-3653?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Project No. H-3653 was rejected because the Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
LIP PROJECT No. H-3926


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-3926?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Project No. H-3926 was approved because it was one of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
LIP PROJECT No. H-4086


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-4086?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Project No. H-4086 was rejected because the Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
LIP PROJECT No. H-4249


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-4249?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Project No. H-4249 was rejected because the Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
LIP PROJECT No. H-4277


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-4277?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Project No. H-4277 was rejected because the Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available

June 27, 1973
Order Paper Questions
for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
LIP PROJECT No. H-4698


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-4698?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Project No. H-4698 was rejected because the Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
LIP PROJECT No. H-5420


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-5420?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Project No. H-5420 was rejected because the Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
LIP PROJECT No. H-5547


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-5547?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Project No. H-5547 was rejected because the Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
LIP PROJECT No. H-5641


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-5641?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Project No. H-5641 was rejected because the Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
LIP PROJECT No. H-5661


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-5661?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Project No. H-5661 was rejected because the Department received a far

greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
LIP PROJECT No. H-5766


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-5766?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Project No. H-5766 was rejected because the Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.


Mr. Gillies: 1.	How many environmental studies are currently being undertaken as to present and potential problems posed by the construction of the all-weather MacKenzie Highway?
2.	How many government-paid researchers are currently working on the environmental reports?
3.	How much, in estimated dollars, will these reports cost?
4.	What is the current estimated date of completion for the all-weather highway, and by what date will one-half of the highway be completed?
5.	By what date will the environmental reports be made public?
6.	Does the government intend to halt the construction of the all-weather MacKenzie Highway until the environmental reports have been made public?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. All environmental studies already published or in course of preparation within the MacKenzie Corridor provide information useful to the location and design of the MacKenzie Highway although many of the studies were commenced initially in anticipation of receipt of applications for a pipeline. On this basis 55 environmental studies as to present and potential problems in the MacKenzie Valley have already been published and 60 more are under way. A list of these reports was tabled with the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development on March 1, 1973. To supplement these studies and to apply their findings to the MacKenzie Highway the department commissioned an Environmental Overview Study which has been completed. The study is now being reviewed and as a result an additional ten to twelve in-depth studies are being considered. Three environmental consultants have also been awarded contracts to work as part of the highway design team over the next three years to provide environmental advice and monitor construction activities.
2.	There are over 100 government-paid researchers currently working on the environmental reports.
3.	Ten million dollars have been spent over the last two fiscal years and a further $5 million will be spent this year on present and potential problems in the MacKenzie Valley.
4.	There is no estimated date of completion. However, the 33-mile section south from Inuvik which will connect up eventually with the Dempster Highway should be com-
June 27, 1973

pleted by the end of this year and the 46-mile section north from Fort Simpson to Camsell Bend should be completed by the end of 1974.
5.	These reports will be published shortly.
6.	No.


Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	To the knowledge of the government, is Omnitrade Limited an organization owned by the Government of Czechoslovakia?
2.	Is the government prepared to monitor the activities of this organization in trade?
3.	Is the government prepared to demand that Omnitrade reveal information in connection with the marketing of steel products properly the industrial property of Bomarc Steel and Industrial Supplies (1971) Limited, a Canadian corporation owned by Canadians?
4.	Is the government actually in favour of nationally-owned trading corporations dealing in Canada with the full protection of Canadian corporate law?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. Yes.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	The government does not discriminate in favour of state trading corporations.


Mr. Boisvert: How much does the government expend for (a) English-speaking public servants to learn French (b) French-speaking public servants to learn English?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: No figures are available to show how much has been spent for English-speaking public servants to learn French and French-speaking public servants to learn English. However, for the fiscal year 1971-72 the Public Service Commission spent $9,636,000.00 for language training.


Mr. Cullen: 1.	Are fingerprints and photographs taken pursuant to the Identification of Criminals' Act and forwarded to the RCMP returned when a citizen is charged with an indictable offence and that charge is subsequently dismissed?
2.	Are such records returned when, notwithstanding the legislation, an individual charged with a non-indictable offence is fingerprinted and photographed and a conviction follows?
3.	Are such records returned when, notwithstanding the legislation, an individual charged with a non-indictable offence is fingerprinted and photographed and the charge is subsequently dismissed?


William Warren Allmand: 1, 2 and 3.
The policy governing the return or otherwise of a citizen's fingerprints or photographs taken pursuant to the Identification of Criminals Act rests with the police department or law enforcement agency which submitted them.
Order Paper Questions
In any of the situations suggested, fingerprints and photographs are returned to the submitter upon their request.


Mr. Wise: What position is the government taking with respect to permitting a Canadian hospital to give acupuncture treatment upon request?


Marc Lalonde: Acupuncture is considered to be a medical act and thus comes under the jurisdiction of the provincial medical licensing bodies.


Mr. Allard: 1.	What are the criteria for the hiring of a public servant?
2.	Does Mr. John Carson have any say in the decision of the Public Service Commission to hire a public servant following a request made by a department demanding an unilingual English person?


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. Appointments to or from within the Public Service Commission are made according to merit under Sections 10 and 12 of the Public Service Employment Act.
2. In the process of making appointments, deputy heads provide the Commission with the linguistic status of positions; that is to say, whether positions require the knowledge of the English or the French or both languages. The Commission, of which Mr. John Carson is the Chairman, determines the level of language knowledge that is required and appoints persons who meet the requirements.


Mr. Godin: For the years 1970, 1971 and 1972, what amount was spent by the government to buy potatoes under its prices support policy in the constituencies of (a) Champlain (b) Portneuf (c) Montmorency?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Constituency
Amount
(a)	Champlain
(b)	Portneuf
(c)	Montmorency
$ Nil $ 1,999.50 $79,471.50


Mr. Kempling: How many original LIP grants are still operating and being funded on a continuing basis by (a) province (b) category?


Mark R. MacGuigan: (a) and (b)
See following schedule.
COMMONS DEBATES	June 27, 1973
	Order Paper Questions L.I.P. Grants Extended from 1971-1972 Program and Given New Contracts under 1972-1973 Program,									per Activity as of 30 May 1973			
Province	Number of Projects	0 Building, Construc- tion	1 Non- Building Construc- tion	2 Lands, Parks and Forestry	3 Artistic and Cultural	4 5 Education Information Services Services	6 Social Services	7 Health Services	8 Sports and Recreation	9 Research	Activity TotalNewfoundland...	9	1	3	2	1	1	1	9Nova Scotia	47	4	5	3	30	4	1	47P.E.I	9	1	3	5	9New Brunswick.	34	10	1	2	2	18	1	Quebec	230	3	1	1	28	15	15	128	3	28	8	230Ontario	158	7	2	15	6	22	92	5	6	3	158Manitoba	34	4	1	2	6	3	14	3	1	34Alberta	41	1	7	2	3	4	15	2	4	3	41Saskatchewan...	13	1	1	1	2	7	1	N.W.T	2	1	1	British Columbia...	133	3	4	2	13	22	10	61	3	14	1	133Yukon	3	1	1	1	Totals	713	37	6	16	70	61	63	367	15	60	18	713


Mr. Leggatt: How many orders were made during the fiscal year 1971-1972 prohibiting the possession of firearms under section 95(1) of the Criminal Code?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: This information is not available at the federal level.


Mr. Mazankowski: How many people have been charged with failing to complete the census forms and what is the breakdown of such charges, by province?


Mr. Godin: 1.	In what city of the Province of Quebec is the main office of the Societe des rentes immobilieres (Sorentim) located?
2.	Does the Company hold a federal charter and, if so, when was it obtained?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. The department's index does not list any company with the name "Societe des rentes immobilieres (Sorentim)". However, it does mention a company with a Quebec charter under the name "La Rente immobiliere Sorentim Limitee". As this is a company incorporated provincially the Corporations Branch of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is not in possession of information as to its head office or its main office.
2. "La Rente immobiliere Sorentim Limitee" does not hold a federal charter, but a Quebec charter.


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada , reports that: As of June 1, 1973, 10 people have been charged under the Statistics Act for failing to complete questionnaires for 1971 Census of Population, Housing and Agriculture. The breakdown of such charges by province is:
Province	Number of Charges
British Columbia	1
Alberta	2
Saskatchewan	1
Manitoba	2
Ontario	3
Quebec	1


Mr. Coates: 1.	On what dates were minimum security penal institutions closed at Springhill, Nova Scotia and Blue Mountain, New Brunswick?
2.	In each instance, how long had the institution in question operated and what was the inmate capacity of each institution?
3.	In each instance, for the last fiscal year of operation, what was the operational budget for the institution?
4.	What was the cost per inmate at both the Springhill and Blue Mountain minimum security institutions?
5.	What was the cost per inmate at the same point in time per inmate at medium and maximum security institutions in Canada?
6.	Were any other minimum security institutions closed out in Canada and, if so, at what locations and in each instance, what was the capacity of each of the institutions closed?


William Warren Allmand: 1. Springhill, September 1, 1969; Blue Mountain, December 12, 1972.
2. Springhill, August 1959 to September 1969, 108 inmates; Blue Mountain, July 1963 to December 1972, 60 inmates.
June 27, 1973

3. Springhill, 1968-69, $439,000; Blue $283,000.	Mountain,	1971-72,4. Springhill, 1968-69, $6,336; Blue $8,611.	Mountain,	1971-72,1968-69	1971-725. Medium Security	$10,218	$8,458*Maximum Security	7,636	9,839
6. Yes, two. Gatineau (minimum) Camp, Ste. Cecile de Masham, Province of Quebec, 80 inmates. Valleyfield (minimum) Camp, Valleyfield, Province of Quebec, 100 inmates.
*The decrease in cost per inmate in Medium Security, from 1968-69 to 1971-72, is attributable to an increase in the number of Medium Security inmates during 1971-72.


Mr. Orlikow: Do any CBC radio stations broadcast in languages or dialects other than English or French and, il so, which radio stations do so, in what languages or dialects and for what periods of time each week?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: Based on March, 1972 figures, CBC Northern Service AM radio stations broadcast a total of about 42 hours of programming per week in the north by and/or for native Indian and Eskimo people in their own languages. The broadcasts originate from the following program centres (and are also broadcast on their connected low power relay transmitters): CFYK, Yellowknife, 3 hours (Indian); CFFB, Frobisher Bay, 25 hours (Eskimo); CHAK, Inuvik 2V2 hours (Eskimo); 3 hours (Indian); CHFC, Fort Churchill 4 hours (Eskimo), 4'A hours (Indian). The native languages used are Eastern Eskimo, Western Eskimo, Cree, Chipewyan, Loucheux (Kutchin), Dog Rib, and Slave. In addition, Northern Service shortwave radio broadcasts in native languages total 11 hours (Eskimo) and one hour 40 minutes (Cree), including repeats. Excluded from the above figures is additional programming in English or French designed for native peoples. In addition to the Northern Service, CBC stations elsewhere broadcast brief inserts in Indian languages in certain weekly programs of interest to Indian people as follows: Ontario, approximately five minutes per week in "Compass North"; Saskatchewan, approximately four minutes per week in "North Country Fair"; Alberta, approximately four minutes per week in "The Native Voice of Alberta" produced by the Alberta Native Communications Society. For a 12-month transitional period following CBC acquisition of radio station CKSB, St. Boniface, the Corporation has offered to make time available to interested language groups which have been accustomed to CKSB broadcasts in their languages. The CBC also broadcasts to other countries via the Radio Canada International shortwave service in Czech, German, Hungarian, Polish, Portuguese,
Order Paper Questions
Slovak, Spanish, Russian and Ukrainian, in addition to English and French.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Post Office Department receive an inquiry on or about February 5, 1973 from Mr. Charles R. Fox, R.R. 2, Brockville, Ontario in regard to a parcel he mailed on or about November 24, 1972 to Vancouver and which had not arrived at its destination and, if so, what action was taken and was Mr. Fox asked to complete a second inquiry form on or about May 7, 1973 because the Post Office Department had lost the original inquiry form made out on or about February 5, 1973?
2.	Does the government owe Mr. Charles R. Fox the sum of $21 for this lost parcel and, if so, for what reason has this money not been paid and on what date will it be paid?


André Ouellet: 1. Yes. The parcel apparently bore a non-existent address. The addressee was not listed in the local directories. The first inquiry was not lost. The second inquiry bore a different address which was not correct. Problems with parcel and delay to inquiry was due to incorrect addresses.
2. An adjustment will be made with Mr. Fox shortly.


Mr. Caouette (Charlevoix): 1.	How many employees are assigned to research on automobile safety in Canada?
2.	What amount was allocated to research on automobile safety in (a) 1968-69 (b) 1969-70 (c) 1970-71 (d) 1971-72?
3.	In 1971-72, how many safety standards were established following research made (a) in Canada (b) in the United States?


Jean Marchand: 1.
Thirteen.
2.	(a) nil; (b) $43,601; (c) $242,364; (d) $397,389.
3.	(a) nine; (b) one. In addition, 12 of the original safety standards established on January 1, 1971 were revised as a result of studies and consultations in Canada and the United States.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	How many different types of leases have been issued by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, or predecessor departments, to leaseholders in national parks?
2.	What are the major categories of lease?
3.	What is the reason for each special category?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. There are three types of leases issued in the National Parks: (a) Residential (seasonal or year round); (b) Commercial (seasonal or year round); (c) Institutional.
2. The major categories of leases include: (a) Residential: (i) Term, 42-year perpetually renewable; 42-year plus 21 year renewal; 42-year sever and remove; 42-year no renewal with compensation for improvements at termination of lease; (ii) Rent, 42-year fixed rent; 42-year rent reviewable every ten years; 42-year rent reviewable each
26446-33a

June 27, 1973
Order Paper Questions
21 years; (b) Commercial: (i) Term, 42-year perpetually renewable; 42-year plus 21 year renewal; 42-year with management option clause(s) on termination; 42-year with two 10-year renewals; 42-year sever and remove; 21-year (industrial); short-term (variable); (ii) Rent, 42-year fixed rent; 42-year rent reviewable every ten years; 42-year rent reviewable every 21 years; 42-year per cent of gross receipts; (c) Institutional: (i) Term, 42-year sever and remove; 42-year; (ii) Rent, 42-year rent reviewable every ten years.
3. The initial breakdown in the lease types is to differentiate between leases used for permanent townsites in the national parks where existing communities are now necessary, as opposed to those townsites or summer cottage subdivisions where leases contain restrictions against occupation in the winter months. Different land uses necessitate different formats for leases, (a) Residential leases contain clauses limiting occupation to persons required to reside in the National Park by reason of business or employment, they provide for compensation for improvements at the end of the term and for special rights for further leasing or rights of first refusal to occupy the premises, all of which are conditions not included in other categories of lease; (b) commercial leases recognize the special requirements of business situations. In addition to particular rental and term conditions, there are special insurance requirements, recordkeeping safeguards, sub-leasing procedures, bankruptcy provision, etc., tailored to fit the business situation; (c) institutional leases recognize the special nature of institutions normally found in a community of comparable size outside the Parks. Institutions include churches, hospitals, schools, community halls, etc. They are currently given special consideration in their rental terms. Leases have been issued in National Parks in Canada for a period approaching a hundred years. It is inevitable that in such a span of time, changing governments, clientele, planning, thinking, all have had an influence on the role of national parks. It is inevitable that the types of leases in use at various times would reflect the thinking of that time. Initially when the parks were little patronized leases had generous terms and nominal rents. Increased use of the parks and ever-increasing demands for both residential and commercial leases have gradually modified our leasing practices and our present policies are intended to reflect contemporary leasing practices.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	How many acres of land does CPR or Marathon Realty or any other agency of CPR own now in consequence of original grants of land to the original CPR by the government?
2.	Does the original grant of land to CPR involve any present exemptions from (a) local (b) provincial (c) federal taxation, other levies or regulations?
3.	If there are present exemptions, what is the nature of each such exemption from (a) local (b) provincial (c) federal tax, levy or regulations?


Jean Marchand: 1, 2 and
3. This information is not available because there is no requirement for CPR to report the status of their remaining land grants.


Mr. Bawden: 1.	Does Canada have any type of diplomatic representation in Angola?
2.	What was the total amount of trade (exports and imports) between Canada and Angola in 1970, 1971 and 1972?
3.	Is there any type of Canadian external aid in the form of CIDA projects or government loans presently in operation in Angola?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. Canada has no diplomatic representation in Angola. Canada does, of course, have an embassy in Lisbon. An honourary commercial representative is employed in Angola on a consultative basis by the Trade Commission in Johannesburg. He, however, has no diplomatic or consular status.
2. Canadian trade with Angola in 1970, 1971 and 1972 was (in Canadian dollar, millions):
1970	1971	1972Exports	0.6	0.9	0.7Imports	9.6	24.5	45.1
3. No.


Mr. Forrestall: Is it the intention of the government to permit negotiations of job security in the revisions to the Public Service Staff Relations Act?


John Mercer Reid: As Mr. Jacob Finkelman is presently charged with the preparation of a report on changes required in the Public Service Staff Relations Act it would not be appropriate for the government to comment on this question at this time.


Mr. Rowland: What steps are being taken by the government to determine whether or not Rhodesian chrome is being imported into Canada via the United States?


Herb Breau: We have no indication that chrome of Rhodesian origin is being imported into Canada and, consequently, no specific investigations are being undertaken by the government, at this time. Imports from Rhodesia and goods of Rhodesian origin are prohibited importation into Canada in accordance with the United Nations Rhodesia Regulations and any imports of Rhodesian chrome would be prohibited in accordance with these Regulations. It is possible, however, that there could be some evasion of the regulations and we will be pleased to investigate same, if specific information that such imports contrary to the regulations are taking place, is brought to our attention.
June 27, 1973


Mr. Cossitt: Is the Executive Assistant to the Solicitor General, Mr. Zavie Levine, permitted to handle, see or examine in any way classified documents or files and, if not, for what reason?


William Warren Allmand: It is not
considered to be in the public interest to provide information as to the degree of access or otherwise to classified information of the government of Canada allowed an individual on the staff of a minister of the Crown.


Mr. Diefenbaker: Is the film "Alien Thunder" being handled or distributed through the National Film Board and, if so, in view of the fact that the Prince Albert Volunteers, and the Northwest Mounted Police during the Rebellion generally operated from the Headquarters in Prince Albert, will the Premiere be shown there?


Gilles Marceau: Mr. Speaker, the National Film Board has advised me that "Alien Thunder" is produced by a private firm and that it is not distributed by them.


Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to encouraging federal-provincial action to establish a highways noise control program?


Mr. William Rompkey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Yes.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Rose: 1.	What were the names and official functions of all persons whose expenses were either partly or fully paid to attend Team Canada's games in Europe in 1972 by the government or Hockey Canada?
2.	What was the total amount paid by (a) Hockey Canada (b) the government?
3.	How much was paid to, or on behalf of, each person listed in Part 1?
Return tabled.



RECOMMENDATIONS OF COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO DISTURBANCES AT KINGSTON PENITENTIARY

Mr. Nielsen: 1.	Of the 55 recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into certain disturbances at Kingston Penitentiary during April, 1971 and the Press Release of the Solicitor General dated March 1, 1973 concerning the report of the Commission, which of the 48 recommendations were fully implemented and which of the 48 recommendations were being implemented at the time the report was received?
2.	Which of the seven recommendations are still under study?
Orders for Returns
3.	What criminal charges were laid against which inmates and in each case, what was the result of the trial?
4.	Do any criminal charges remain outstanding against either inmates or correctional officers and, if so, what is the intended disposition of such charges?
5.	Was any other disciplinary action taken against either inmates or correctional officers and, if so, against which inmates and which correctional officers and, in each instance, what was the disposition of such disciplinary action?
6.	Has there been any increase or decrease in the number of personnel at Kingston Penitentiary since the presentation of the report of the Commission and, if so, what was or is the nature of the duty of each such personnel change?
7.	Prior to the presentation of the report of the Commission were any limits, other than merit, imposed upon opportunities for promotion to senior positions?
8.	What are the paramount criteria for promotion which are now in effect?
9.	What is the present inmate population of Kingston Penitentiary?
10.	How many (a) full-time and (b) part-time psychologists and/or psychiatrists are on the staff at Kingston Penitentiary?
11.	What is the total number of staff now employed at Kingston Penitentiary and how many are engaged in each category of employment?
Return tabled.



DEPARTMENT OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE-GRANTS FOR TRAVEL AND EXCHANGE FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS

Mr. Masniuk: 1.	How does the Department of the Secretary of State determine a grant in the area of travel and exchange for high school students?
2.	What is the criterion used by the selection committee in determining the value of a specific project?
3.	Who are the members of the selection committee?
4.	Are Members of Parliament invited to participate in the work of the committee?
5.	If a particular project has been refused by the selection committee, can their decision be appealed?
6.	To whom, in what amounts and in what geographical areas have such grants been (a) approved (b) provided?
Return tabled.



TOTAL NUMBER OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

Mr. Matte: 1.	What is the total number of employees in each department of the government?
2.	What is the total number of employees in each Crown corporation?
3.	What is the total number of employees in each government agency responsible to one department or another?
Return tabled.
[Transla tion]


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) is rising on a question of privilege.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that one of my questions which was put on the order paper on May 18 refers to an area which interests all

June 27, 1973
Motions for Papers
Canadians, may I ask the hon. Minister of Regional Economic Expansion whether he intends to answer this question in the near future, since I really want to get an answer in this matter.


Mr. Comtois:: Mr. Speaker, I take the hon. member's question as notice and I will inform the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion of the hon. member's comments.


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. In view of the statement the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) made last night with respect to Information Canada and the desire of the government to make information available to members and the public, I wonder whether the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) might answer question No. 1849 which I have had on the order paper for almost three months.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I have prepared answers to the questions that relate to my department but several departments are involved. I think the entire answer will be ready soon.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Joseph-Roland Comtois: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall notices of motions for the production of papers stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[ Translation]


Mr. Laprise:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
On April 18, 1973, as recorded in Hansard at page 3424, notice of motion No. 203 for the production of papers was agreed to by the House. This morning, I checked with the distribution office and was told that these documents have not been tabled as yet.
Mr. Speaker, I was informed last week that these returns are in the hands of some people of the township of Taschereau. Therefore, I strongly protest against this way of proceeding and ask that these returns be tabled as soon as possible, in order to be available to hon. members in accordance with the order adopted on April 18.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In light of the confirmation of the Prime Minister on June 20 that the government's energy statement this week will only be "a presentation of all relevant data rather than a policy proposal", will the minister inform the House why public servants in his department have prepared a 30-point public relations program on the matter entitled "Public Relations Program on Energy Policy in Canada" and have even arranged for Brinks trucks to help with the minister's distribution problems throughout the country?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The documents in question run close to 700 pages and deal with the full range of the energy problems in Canada. Because of the possibility that some part of this information could have an impact on the markets during the course of the day when the markets are open and because of the desirability to get copies in the hands not only of the provincial governments, but interested individuals right across Canada, we have adopted this practice under the most secure circumstances possible of distributing the documents right across the country.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In light of the cabinet directive of April 10 that the report be absolutely neutral and not portray any policy preferences the minister may have, will the minister explain why public servants and the minister's staff are involved in preparing for follow-up conferences and public meetings and appearances, on "Cross Country Check-Up", "Under Attack", "Week End", "View Point", "Canada A.M." and "Tuesday Night" for the minister? In short, what will the minister do for an encore if and when he has an energy policy to announce?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, without wanting to criticize my own public servants, I must say that nothing they could do in preparing the public for the receipt of this document would be quite as effective as the announcement the hon. member has just made on my behalf.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: According to the information document I have referred to, Statistics Canada will be asked to do a survey that will provide a feedback on the effectiveness of the information program, not on people's attitudes with respect to the energy issue in Canada. Can the minister explain why such a feedback is necessary and has it in fact been requisitioned?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, one of the
essentials of an effective energy policy is to have a good
June 27, 1973

and general public understanding of the issues involved. Of course, if we are to regard the hon. member's knowledge in this area as being representative, there is a great deal to be done in the way of information.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Calgary South for a supplementary and then the hon. member for York South.


Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact the energy statement this week will be merely a presentation of relevant data rather than a policy proposal, can the Prime Minister explain why over a year ago the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, referring to the urgency of this problem, said that the federal government was evolving an energy policy to meet the fast changing circumstances of the seventies?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will allow the Prime Minister to reply to the question, but when a member asks a member of the government or the Prime Minister to explain a statement made some time ago, that is debate rather than seeking of information. Having said no, the Prime Minister will be recognized for the purpose of replying briefly.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the answer, of course, lies in what has been said repeatedly by the minister and myself, namely, that an energy policy is made up of many elements. Many elements of such a policy have been made and stated by the government. A few weeks ago the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources stated a policy with regard to export controls on gasoline and heating fuels. What is expected now is that the public will look at the totality of the facts, including the policies we have in place, and be prepared to discuss with the government a new over-all policy for the future.


Peter Colwell Bawden: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the nothingness of the facts in the minister's report, which I have looked over, will the minister state what budget went into the preparation of this report, what budget is going into the distribution of this report, and what his future plans are in this regard?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the hon. member wait because the document he has in his hand is not the report.


ELECTION EXPENSES
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to either the Prime Minister or, perhaps more appropriately, the President of the Privy Council. It arises out of a subject about which I wrote the Prime Minister, with a copy to the President of the Privy Council. Is consideration being given to taking immediate steps
Oral Questions
to see that the bill on election expenses, introduced by the President of the Privy Council last Friday, will be passed into law before we recess for the summer?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as far as the government ranks are concerned, we hope this will be the case. We do not know how long parliament will be willing to sit this summer. We have indicated a series of measures which are urgent and must be dealt with before the summer recess.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I hope we can conclude from these reactions that there is a general disposition to get this legislation through quickly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think that would be more readily demonstrated if the Conservative opposition behaved in a more effective way in the future than they have in the past.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to understand some of the Conservative hilarity on the subject. I have a supplementary question for the President of the Privy Council. In a statement on television some time ago the Leader of the Official Opposition indicated support for a bill such as the minister has introduced and I have done so on behalf of my colleagues and myself. Will the President of the Privy Council undertake immediate discussions with the House leaders of the other parties to see if we can arrange for a limited debate on second reading and generally expedite the passage of this bill?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I have already raised the matter with the other House leaders. It is my understanding that following consultations that may take place in the party caucuses it will be possible later in the week for me to know whether there is any disposition to send the bill to committee rather quickly with a short debate. If that were possible, and if the committee could facilitate the progress of the bill, we could proceed to its passage before we rise for the summer adjournment. However, that bill is competing for attention, as the hon. member knows, with a number of other bills, some of which are not yet in committee. We have to work out some way of dealing with all of them while still being able to rise for a reasonable summer adjournment.


Mr. Baldwin:: Would the government House leader give serious consideration to bringing this in at a time when all members would be aware it was before the House, say around the third week in July?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No. I would prefer, if possible, to bring it on toward the end of next week.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 27, 1973
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Real Caouette (Temisi imingue):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Following the meeting of the Quebec Minister of Lands and Forests (Mr. Drummond) with the CIP president, would the hon. minister tell us if a conclusion has been reached, what has been the role of the federal government and, under the circumstances, what decision has been taken?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Until such time as final approval has been given it would not be possible for me to state a specific amount. I can advise the House that a submission from me has gone forward for consideration by my colleagues, and I would hope it could be dealt with very promptly. As to the nature of the submission and proposals, they are roughly speaking in line with what was requested in the first instance.
[ Translation]


CIP PLANT IN TEMISCAMING-ALLEGED THEFT OF TIMBER-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
It was suggested yesterday that the CIP is considering floating 50,000 cords of wood down the Ottawa river. Are the 170,000 cords of wood which the CIP had up there included in the deal in connection with which the federal government was prepared to subsidize and is the hon. minister in a position to tell the House whether some of his officials are currently watching the very dubious actions of the CIP in Temiscaming?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: We are aware of the fact that the company, CIP, has moved a quantity of the wood which is necessary for this particular project. However, other than having indicated to the company that we were moving toward a resolution of this problem, it is not within the authority of the federal government to make any decision as to the manner in which the wood is to be disposed of. That would be a matter for the appropriate authorities in the province of Quebec.


REQUEST FOR MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR FLYING OF UNION JACK AS SYMBOL OF CANADA'S MEMBERSHIP IN COMMONWEALTH AND ALLEGIANCE TO CROWN
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Prime Minister. It has to do with Her Majesty the Queen, with particular reference to her speech last evening setting forth clearly and definitely her integral part in the Parliament of Canada and also to the response she has received which indicates a loyalty, a devotion and a love for the Queen that could not have been exemplified more clearly and definitely.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I therefore ask the Prime Minister who must, constitutionally, have participated in the production of that speech, whether the government will bring before the House a measure to provide that the Royal Union Flag, generally known as the Union Jack, may continue to be flown as a symbol of Canada's membership in the Commonwealth of Nations and of our allegiance to the Crown?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The right hon. gentleman is correct in his assumption that the advice given to the Queen by her Canadian advisers concerned not only the details of her visit but statements she was going to make that might have any policy implications. As to the second part of the question, no, Mr. Speaker, there is no intention to introduce such a resolution, but I understand it is recognized that the Union Jack does serve as a symbol of the unity of the Commonwealth countries.


John George Diefenbaker: That was not the view of the committee of parliament which in its final report on the flag recommended that the government be authorized to take the step to which I have referred. In order to give substance to the words of Her Majesty the Queen, and having regard to the Commonwealth Conference which will take place in August, will the Prime Minister not reconsider the offhand opinion he has just given and carry out the wishes of a committee of parliament to the end that the Union Jack may take its place to the left of the Speaker's chair?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Surely, this is a matter for parliament itself to decide, not for the government to impose on parliament. The reason the Canadian flag is there now is that a motion was moved by a Liberal member and supported by the House of Commons. As to the Commonwealth Conference, it is true that the Queen will be here at the invitation of the government of Canada. This will be the first time she will attend a Commonwealth Conference held outside the United Kingdom. We are very pleased and proud as a government that she has accepted the invitation. I am sure that whatever symbols or displays are needed at that time to show our loyalty will be present.


John George Diefenbaker: With respect to the right hon. gentleman, I would ask him whether or not the recommendation of a committee of the previous parliament to the effect
June 27, 1973

that something should be done by the government will be followed. Will the Prime Minister, in view of his knowledge of the constitutional position that parliament must decide, bring before the House a motion to this effect, which I am sure will be passed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am surprised the opposition did not use one of its many opposition days to bring in such a motion. There must be some disagreement within their party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: The same old sham on the part of the Prime Minister.


CHERRIES-REQUEST FOR ACTION TO ASSIST PRODUCERS IN VIEW OF EFFECT OF IMPORTS ON PRICE
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance, one of the two self-styled watchdogs over the welfare of the Canadian farmer. In view of the fact that an abnormally high production of cherries in the United States is already responsible for sales of American cherries on Canadian markets at a price lower than the Canadian cost of production, can the minister say whether the Minister of Agriculture has made representations to him for remedial action on behalf of Canadian producers?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. gentleman that I have as many good farmers in my riding as he has in his. I keep in touch with my farmers, as he does. I maintain consultation with my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture. Officials of both our departments have been asked to prepare a detailed report for cabinet on an urgent basis. In the meantime, I have directed that the necessary discussions with United States authorities take place forthwith.


Mr. Kenneth J. Higson (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. Has he received representations from fruit growers' associations expressing concern as to the present emergency situation to which the hon. member for Kent-Essex referred, and will he indicate what representations he has made to the Minister of Finance to assist Canadian fruit growers in realizing a fair return on their product without the depressing influence of offshore products?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I have received representations from them. I have made representations to the Minister of Finance and consulted with him. I talked with the Minister of Agriculture for Ontario at about 12.30 today. He is satisfied we are doing everything possible and that if we act as we intend to act it will be more than satisfactory.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on.
Oral Questions


Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to questions directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact the Prime Minister has said that the Minister of Agriculture looks after important government policy for the protection of primary producers, a policy that must involve the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member kindly ask his question. I think his introduction is perhaps a bit lengthy.


George H. Whittaker: I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture what he has recommended to the government regarding the situation that has developed in respect of Canadian cherry marketing?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member knows there are certain things he will just have to be patient about and wait to hear.


FINANCE
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the charge by the Auditor General in his most recent report that the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce failed to safeguard an account for $2.7 million in public funds owned by an unidentified company, will the minister confirm that the foreign-controlled Canadian Marconi Limited is the firm involved, and will he tell the House what steps have been taken to rectify the situation?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to confirm that report.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is not in a
position to deny it, either.


William George Knight: Will the minister investigate the matter and inform the House whether the failure to safeguard the $2.7 million account resulted solely from incompetent administration or whether the influence of such prominent Liberals as Hazen Hansard, a director of Canadian Marconi Limited-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that a question asked in those terms is not in order.
5120

June 27, 1973
Oral Questions INDUSTRY


SHORTAGE OF RAW MATERIALS AND RESULTING HIGHER PRICES-REQUEST FOR DETAILED INVENTORY
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In light of numerous statements by buyers that present or pending shortages of basic raw materials such as steel, chemicals, copper and zinc are constraining expansion and placing increased pressure on prices, will the minister tell the House whether the government has done a detailed inventory recently of our basic materials and, if so, will he table that study?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, we keep a very close watching brief, on a commodity by commodity basis, on materials that might be going into short supply, but we have no such over-all report as the hon. gentleman has suggested.


William James Kempling: In light of the continuing complaint of the minister that one of the main causes of inflation in world demand, is the government prepared to establish domestic price guidelines in these key areas to prevent excess foreign demand forcing up prices of basic materials in Canada?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think the debate we have had in respect of this question would indicate that such a policy would not be effective.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
In view of the fact that some injustice seems to be involved in several offers for compensation to be paid by the government for the purchase of farms and other properties in this area for the construction of the Mirabel airport near Montreal, and for the satisfaction of the people in question, would the minister tell us whether he will allow those land owners, who think their rights are encroached upon, to go to arbitration to settle their claims?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the Expropriation Act provides for judiciary action and some did go to court to challenge compensations which they did not find satisfactory. In fact this procedure is provided for by law and out of 3,000 cases in dispute I think only 350 are outstanding out of which 150 will be easily settled.


MIRABEL-INQUIRY RESPECTING EXPROPRIATION PROCEEDINGS-INEQUALITY OF OFFERS
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary.

At present, exactly 381 cases have not been settled. In 90 cases, the owners did not get any anticipated payment and the others had one. In the case of people who did get a payment and do not live on their farms, I should like to know under which authority the government can sublet or let this land to other people than the farmer who has not yet sold his farm?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I feel the hon. member is inviting the minister to express a legal view. If my interpretation is not correct, perhaps the minister might try to give an answer to the hon. member for Temiscamingue.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the expropriation is a fact: the federal government owns all the land that will be occupied by the airport. On the second point, concerning the 381 cases in question, I could perhaps give the hon. member a plan of the division. It should not perhaps be necessary to give a global figure because we have not been able to communicate with some owners. Thus the figure of 381 out of 3,000 is exaggerated and it should perhaps be reduced.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member can ask his supplementary, then I shall recognize the hon. Leader of the Opposition.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary.
I should like to know why some government experts give $64,000 to a farmer for his property whereas they offer only $51,000 to his neighbour who has exactly the same acreage of land, with similar buildings.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I should have both relevant files at hand. With the hon. colleague, we could perhaps see why-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

[ English]


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. He will recall that for some four months I have been asking for a report on the results of the so-called monitoring of the passing on of reductions in customs and excise taxes announced in the budget, with no success. Can he tell me what is going on, and indicate briefly what the monitoring process is and the reason for the delay?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, there is a unit in my department that is carrying out the work which involves various surveys. As I said to the hon. member and the House the
June 27, 1973

other day, that work is not completed and it will take some time because it is necessary to trace through the economy the effects of the tax reductions proposed in the budget. Obviously, these did not apply to stocks on hand at the time the budget was presented to the House so I think it is clear why it would take some time for the work to be completed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Can the minister explain why it takes four months to do this and will he indicate when we are going to get that report, or is it just a figment of his imagination?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: Even the price of figs has gone up.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have tried to explain in as simple terms as possible to my hon. friend that we have to appraise the effects of the budget proposals on a large number of different categories of goods at different levels of trade, and I think it should be obvious even to my hon. friend that this would take some time.


An hon. Member:: A housewife could do it in an hour.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


INQUIRY OF THE CABINET
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Does he expect to be able to announce to this House, before the adjournment in July, the name of the future Governor General of Canada, or does he intend to make a recommendation concerning this to Her Majesty the Queen during her visit in Ottawa at the beginning of August, on the occasion of the Commonwealth meeting?


Right Hon.. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that I shall be able to make an announcement regarding such a recommendation before the end of July, but I intended to do so in August. Of course, I welcome the proposal of the hon. member that I consider discussing this with the Queen at that time, provided I feel prepared to do so.


Alexandre Cyr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
Is the name of a French-Canadian, which could eventually be suggested to Her Majesty the Queen, on the list of eligible candidates for the position of Governor General?
Oral Questions


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Can the minister now report to the House on my question yesterday requesting the deportation of a group of gypsies who are presently victimizing people in western Canada?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the hon. member's representation an investigation has been started into this matter. I might draw to his attention, however, that the gypsy families recently examined, I believe on May 7, in Montreal have already been ordered deported and have appealed to the Immigration Appeal Board; therefore the matter, for the time being at least, is out of my jurisdiction. If the investigation now under way reveals that our national interests would be best served by their prompt removal from Canada, all I can and will do is to recommend to the appeal board that priority be given to the hearing of their appeals.


Donald Craig Stewart: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Solicitor General. Has the Solicitor General requested the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to have this band of gypsies deported, as they impose a heavy demand on the RCMP in having to tail them back and forth across Canada?


William Warren Allmand: Not to my
knowledge, Mr. Speaker, but I will check it out.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, when an appeal is made, due process of law has to take place and I cannot interfere.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


REQUEST THAT CHARGES AGAINST FARMERS FOR OVERDELIVERIES BE WITHDRAWN IN LIGHT OF PRESENT OPEN QUOTAS
Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice who is in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. Now that there is an open delivery quota for wheat, oats and barley, is the government prepared to drop its charges against farmers who made small overdeliveries?
Hon. Otto E Lang (Minister of Justice): Mr. Speaker, each individual case of an offence against the regulations is examined on its own merits and no blanket policy is adopted. The quota regulations are good and desirable regulations, and the fact that at a later time in a given quota the year may become open is no ground for a blanket policy.
26446-34J

June 27, 1973
Oral Questions


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In light of the Manitoba election maybe there is ground for a blanket policy to drop these charges because of the very small amount of grain involved.


Mr. Lang:: It would be improper if one allowed such a consideration to influence one's judgment on this question.


HOCKEY-SIGNING OF UNDER AGE PLAYERS BY PROFESSIONAL CLUBS-REQUEST THAT MINISTER MEET WITH WHA AND NHL
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could direct a question to the mobile Minister of National Health and Welfare; I see he is returning to his seat. In view of the concern expressed by Canadians regarding the implications of the signing of under age players to big league, professional hockey contracts, does the minister intend to meet with the World Hockey Association and the National Hockey League in an attempt to resolve this issue?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I sent a telegram to the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association, the National Hockey League and the World Hockey Association last week. I am meeting with the first organization on Thursday afternoon, the second on Friday, and I hope to meet with the third during the course of next week in order to try to get these organizations to arrive at a satisfactory agreement.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister is in a position at the moment to reveal to the House the government's policy in respect of leaving players as juniors until age 20, a policy threatened by the recent WHA intervention.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have already expressed to the organizations involved our concern about the possibility of a return to the situation that existed before the most recent agreement. But we are going to try to encourage the parties to arrive at a negotiated agreement between all of them, rather than impose a solution.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the answer just given by the minister, outside of using his good offices to bring together representatives of the World Hockey Association, the National Hockey League and the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association-I am asking this question for information-is there anything to prevent the further piracy of teenage players by the WHA? Has the minister been able to ascertain any power in the federal government that would permit action to be taken-and effective action?


Marc Lalonde: Not that I know of at the present time, but obviously parliament can always decide to give the government further powers if necessary.


PATENTS
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. On May 30 last I asked a question dealing with Canadian Patents and Development Limited. I again asked the minister a similar question on June 12, at which time he referred me to a letter containing a proposal that I speak directly to the officers of Canadian Patents and Development Limited. That meeting took place last Friday and proved to be fruitless. I therefore-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member ask the question. There are just five or six minutes left before the end of the question period.


Paul Wyatt Dick: For that reason I am asking whether or not the annual report of Canadian Patents and Development Limited will now be referred to the miscellaneous estimates committee.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I will take note of the hon. gentleman's representation.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think it is only fair to point out that on May 30 the President of the Treasury Board said he would take note of it. On June 12 he proposed another solution. He is moving about continuously in this way. He should come to a decision.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That takes care of a minute of the question period.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport, if he is listening. My question arises from the meeting the minister had two weeks ago with the Midwestern Development Council. Can the minister tell the House whether he is willing to accede to the request of the Midwestern Development Council that a trilevel committee be immediately struck to look into the problems of rail transportation and all transportation in southwestern Ontario?


Jean Marchand: I think I have to meet with the minister from Ontario. I am expecting an answer from the CTC, as I mentioned last time. I do not think I can give an answer right away.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the minister heard my question. I was not referring to the announcement of a policy for southwestern Ontario, but whether or not he is willing to accede to the request that a trilevel committee
June 27, 1973

be struck, which he indicated two weeks ago he would be telling the House about in the near future.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am not dealing only with a private organization but with the government of Ontario, and I do not think I will move in any way in that field without the consent of the government of Ontario.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe and then the hon. member for Vegreville.

[ Translation]


NATIONAL CAPITAL
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Does the government intend to invite Mr. Douglas Fullerton to hold hearings during the special study he is conducting on the future development of the national capital region?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. As the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe has stated, the study is being conducted for the government. It is not a commission of inquiry. We would certainly be very happy, if the House so wishes, to discuss the problems of the national capital in a House committee, at the proper time and place. But this study is being done for the government; it is being conducted by Mr. Fullerton himself, and public hearings are not expected to be held.


Claude Wagner: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
In view of Mr. Fullerton's refusal to hold public hearings, does the government intend to give a House standing committee, as the right hon. Prime Minister has suggested, the responsibility of inviting interested parties to make recommendations on the national capital?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Fullerton has not refused to hold hearings; rather, he has no authority to do so. He has not been appointed under the Inquiries Act or any other such legislation which would give him the power to hold inquiries. He has been hired, on contract, to conduct a study for the government.
As for the second part of the question, Mr. Speaker, I say again that the government will be happy to hear suggestions from anyone aimed at improving the situation of the national capital in any way possible, and if a committee wishes to tackle this problem, we will be happy to take part in it.
Oral Questions


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the government's decision to deny Bell Canada's application for increased service charges which were previously granted by the Canadian Transport Commission, and in view of the series of recommendations and instructions which have been issued by the government to the president of CTC, which raises the question of confidence in the capacity of the president of the CTC, I ask the Prime Minister whether he is actively considering the replacement of the president of the CTC?


An hon. Member:: John Turner!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, of course I cannot agree with the allegations contained in the question. The government exercises the right which is provided to it under legislation adopted by the House, and I do not think that the exercise of that right under the legislation is an expression of contempt for anyone.


BELL CANADA-SUGGESTION THAT RATE INCREASES WILL IMPOSE HARDSHIP ON BLIND PERSONS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that the decision of the government to allow Bell Canada increases will pose a severe hardship on blind persons in this country, may I ask the minister what he proposes to do about this matter and if he has had discussions with Bell Canada to point out to them exactly what the consequences of the rate increases are for blind persons in Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the hon. member speak to his colleague who just said that we have denied Bell Canada the increases.


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of a letter dated June 18, sent by William Teron Associates and signed by William Teron, to Ottawa-based lobbies advising then) of the future availability of 120,000 square feet of prime office space in the proposed Association House in downtown Ottawa, can the minister assure the House that Mr. Teron will divest himself of all his

June 27, 1973
Oral Questions
financial interests in corporations involved in land dealings and real estate?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the purpose of the letter was to inform people that he would not be associated with that building, and the proposals with regard to Mr. Teron are that he divest himself of any active investment companies.


John Paul Harney: Is the minister aware of the fact that Mr. Teron promised in his letter to send another letter to the lobbies in a few months, and would the minister agree that a blind trust, as mentioned by the Prime Minister in the House the other day, amounts to throwing a blanket over an elephant in the hope that it will disappear?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


FINANCE
Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In light of the difficulties in which chartered banks find themselves due to the large increase in Bank of Canada interest rates, can the minister tell the House whether it is the intention of the government to negotiate with the banks a formula under which the government would allow a further subsidy and guarantee of repayment of loans made to farmers, small businessmen and fishermen?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the substance of the preamble, nor with the proposed solution. As I said yesterday, the government will be announcing its decision shortly.


FISHERIES
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries. It has to do with the effect of the severe storms on fishermen in the Atlantic region almost two weeks ago. Can he tell us what the government has been doing to delineate federal and provincial responsibilities with regard to possible aid, and what co-ordination there is in this regard at present?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, discussions have been going on among the department here and with the provincial departments of fisheries. We have decided, for example, to make the gear that was collected last year from salmon fishermen available, on reasonable terms, to fishermen. Other measures will be announced in due course.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Yesterday I put a question to the minister asking whether agreement had been reached with the provinces with regard to the water development program PFRA which would involve concentration on multipurpose water projects. Can he reply to the question today?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I checked into the hon. member's question. The position is that negotiations with regard to agreements are proceeding. They have not been concluded yet with any province, but we have made it plain to the provinces at the same time that individual applications will be entertained. I am told that at least one has been approved to the point where it is awaiting my signature.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Yukon on a supplementary, and the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe on a supplementary to a previous question, after which the Chair will call orders of the day.


APPLICATION OF DREE LEGISLATION TO YUKON AND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. He will recall that in the standing committee he informed me that he was considering the application of the DREE legislation to the two northern territories. Can he say now when this act will be translated into a truly national act with application to both the Yukon and the Northwest Territories?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the matter to which I was referring earlier in reply to the hon. member for Mackenzie had to do with prairie wells, but I suppose that is as good a peg as any on which to ask a question. I have had discussions with my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and also with a number of native associations with a view to expanding the base of our activities in the manner requested by the hon. member. I hope that something of substance will emerge.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and is supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Central Nova. In view of the repeated storm damage during the fishing year, and in view of the fact that the federal government is not doing anything
June 27, 1973

about compensation, would the minister advise the House when he will announce some type of catch insurance program for fishermen in the Atlantic region or for all Canadian fishermen?


John (Jack) Davis: As the hon. member knows, a catch insurance plan is in prospect. However, we would like to see the unemployment insurance program in effect a few years before we make alternative proposals to the fishermen.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order which relates to the reply to a question tabled today over the signature of the Minister of Transport. I would have raised it earlier but I only received the answer during the question period. In my question I asked how many acres of land Canadian Pacific Railway owns now in consequence of original grants of land by the government, and also whether there were any present exemptions on any of that land. I received a reply which reads:
This information is not available because there is no requirement for CPR to report the status of their remaining land grants.
Clearly, that does not answer my question at all and it completely ignores the request for information about present exemptions. It indicates to me that the Minister of Transport is as uncommunicative in writing as he is in person.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Mr. Lundrigan:: I intended to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare or the government House leader a question about the FISP bill, but I do not see either of them in the House so it will have to wait.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, June 20, consideration in committee of Bill C-192, to amend the Income Tax Act (No. 2)-Mr. Turner	(Ottawa-Carleton)-Mr. McCleave in the chair.
The Chairman:: Order. House again in committee of the whole on Bill C-192, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (No. 2). When the committee rose on Wednesday, June 20, clause 1 of the bill was under discussion. Shall clause 1 carry?
On clause 1-Deduction from corporate tax: manufacturing and processing profits.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Chairman, as a result of informal discussions with the Minister of
Income Tax Act (No. 2)
Finance I should like to propose a way of proceeding with our discussion and perhaps the vote without asking the committee to pronounce itself on any particular item in this bill. This is to avoid some of the hassle that we had last night.
This bill has but two clauses. Clause 1 is composed of a number of parts, four to be exact. I suggest that we proceed with each of the subparagraphs at a time, from (1) to (4). We can then go to clause 2 of the bill. However, I make this exception. The four subparagraphs in subclause (1) can be handled together; they deal with manufacturing and processing. At the foot of page 5 of the bill there is a small subclause (2), which is merely transitional and consequential. Then the review procedure is dealt with at page 6 in subclause (3). Then follows clause 2 of the bill at the foot of page 6. That is the complete bill.
With all due deference, Mr. Chairman, the minister and I have agreed, and I think our hon. friends will agree with us, that this is the best way to proceed so we will not have any difficulties about calling the Chair back. I am sure you know what I mean.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I think the Chair understands what is proposed. The Chair has given some consideration as well to this problem. If this meets with the general agreement of the committee, it could be considered that the hon. member for Edmonton West has made his initial contribution on a point of order. Probably this is generally agreeable to the committee. We can then commence in the way he has suggested, that is by breaking down clause 1 into three different portions and dealing with each. Does the committee agree with that proposal?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Is the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre rising on the particular point of order?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We are prepared to agree to this arrangement, but in view of the fact that these numbers are a bit confusing I wonder whether the situation could be clarified by indicating the pages we will be dealing with. I understand that what is suggested for our first discussion covers pages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 down to paragraph (2). Is that correct?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then try again.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I apologize; I thought I had given more precision to it. What I call block one is subparagraph (1) on page 1 of the bill, beginning at line 7, through to line 31 on page 2. Then starting at line 32 at page 2 through to line 33 on page 3 is block two. Line 34 on page 3 through to line 33 on page 5 is block three. Then the fourth block would be from line 1 on page 6 to line 28. Then I suppose you could say the fifth block is clause 2, which starts at line 29 on page 6.


John Napier Turner: Have you not forgotten the subclause right at the foot of page 5?

June 27, 1973
Income Tax Act (No. 2)


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is merely consequential. We will then return to clause 1.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on the same point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, this is more clear and is acceptable.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I think hon. members of the committee are agreed on the way we will proceed. Initially we will start on page 1 and page 2 down to line 31 in the English version and line 38 in the French version.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In the first block, Mr. Chairman, we are considering what you might call the major manufacturing and processing corporations and the proposal of the Minister of Finance in his budget of May 8, 1972, to reduce the profits of manufacturing and processing corporations by 10 per cent. Actually, with the efflux of time and with the Income Tax Act itself picking up one percentage point, the figure is 9 per cent.
As I and my leader have said on a number of occasions, corporate business throughout the country has been woefully ignorant about precisely what the minister did propose. I must say I found that the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and a number of other organizations had an interest in this question. The Canadian Manufacturers Association, by inference and certainly as a result of discussion with a number of their representatives, had the impression that corporate profits as a whole were being reduced by 10 per cent, which is why they became so agitated about what they felt was a delay on the part of certain people.
First of all, we note that this was proposed on May 8, 1972. The proposal then went through the trying fires of an election campaign. One cannot say it received an overwhelming mandate in that campaign, because if one looks outside the province of Quebec there were by far more people voting against the government than voting for the government. If the parliamentary secretary wants to be technical about it, I will show him that more Canadians voted against the government than for it-60 per cent of those who voted, voted against it.
The minister and the government have insisted that this is primarily a counter-DISC measure. This was to put Canadian processing and manufacturing in a better position to compete in face of the American DISC program. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that there are other methods to help Canadians counter American measures that would be efficacious and would not attract particular attention and possible retaliation. One must understand American taxation laws and their general principles. They have flexible tools for retaliation through duties, and their fiscal system is very flexible on the basis of executive action.
To single this out as a counter-DISC measure immediately invites the attention of those interests in the United States that are strong advocates of DISC, which has a stated economic objective, to take further action against Canada. I want to place this particular measure in pers-

pective. The minister suggested that it was an economic tool that would guarantee a cure for many ills. I am not so sanguine about it, but as the Leader of the Opposition has said, a lot of people had faith in the government's budgetary proposal. We said we would see this measure along part of the road but would not see it as a permanent feature of the corporate tax system.
Tied in with this was what was proposed by regulation, the accelerated capital cost allowances. Initially the budget proposed that these be open-ended; there was no terminal date announced on May 8, 1972. It was only on February 19 of this year that the minister, perhaps to placate some NDP objections to the capital cost allowance program, said that he would impose a two-year limitation on the program and that there would be a review of it. I hope that review will take in capital cost allowances on residences not occupied by the owners. When the hon. member for York South talked about deferred taxes and capital cost allowances being corporate rip-offs, he did not say that those self-same things are applicable to individuals of very modest status and have the same effect under the Income Tax Act.
I shall talk about deferred taxes, although they are not germane at this point. A deferred tax for a corporation is the same as a recapture of depreciation on non-residential premises or non-occupied residential premises by an individual. He is allowed depreciation which according to the market is not the true rate of depreciation because the market shows that the property is appreciating. When the house or small apartment block is disposed of there is an increase in value, a recapture of depreciation. That has created a capital flow. The fact that the owner has been able to deduct depreciation during the years of ownership has put capital in his pocket-a loan from the state without interest, if one follows the argument of the New Democratic Party. It is the same with the individual as with the corporation.
In any event, this was done in the budget of February, 1973. With the latter portion provision, the limitation to two years, I am in sympathy, but it was said that a one-year limitation would be imposed upon it to the end of 1973 in respect of goods acquired or committed. The period is not much greater under capital cost allowances. But I say that the reduction to 40 per cent for manufacturing and processing is discriminatory in Canadian corporate tax, particularly where the manufacture and processing of commodities are in the area covered by the bill.
If one looks at the exceptions clause one will see that a great number of goods produced in Canada will not be covered by this bill. We are looking at a small sector of the economy. The service industry, which represents 60 per cent of Canada's economic activity, is not taxed at all. It is paying a 7 per cent increase in income tax this year; it is not actually 7 per cent but it is 5. something. For 18 months it enjoyed a 7 per cent tax cut. Now it is paying the full rate. Surprisingly, Mr. Chairman, a number of businessmen come to me scratching their heads saying, "Do you know that those so-and-so's have increased the tax on corporations?" We say "Yes, we told you so".
What I have to say about the attitude of the CMA and their letter, and so forth, is not printable in polite circles. I think there was a fundamental misunderstanding of the

whole set-up. Be that as it may, in the annual report of the CMA there is an outline of the events as they happened from last November to the present time. The question I ask is whether the minister has taken care of, and will he perhaps make an explanation of the capital cost allowance on buildings and other structures as these were affected by the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. If I read this bulletin properly, it says on page 15:
Following the CMA's strenuous oral and written representations, class 8 of schedule B of the income tax regulations was amended in July by order in council to include property that is a structure in the nature of manufacturing or processing machinery or equipment and tangible property attached to a building.
I wonder if the Minister of Finance would be prepared to table that order in council which was passed last July and corrected, shall we say, the difficulties created by the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in dealing with capital cost allowance on buildings and other structures. This has to do with clause 8 of schedule B. I would appreciate it if the minister would table that order in council.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I will guarantee to do that either in committee or elsewhere, although it is a public document.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It may be a public document. It was referred to in the Canada Gazette. But it is not a public document in this House, and certainly it is not before the committee.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order, please. Perhaps the Chair could deal with this point. I presume it would meet the wishes of the committee if the document in question were tabled when the committee rises and we resume sitting in the House.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I am interested, of course, in block 3 where there is a definition of Canadian manufacturing and processing profits.
On December 28 the minister issued a news release in which he outlined proposed income tax regulations dealing with manufacturing and processing profits. I appreciate the minister's courtesy in tabling this release in the House on June 8. The news release deals with the proposed method of determining a corporation's Canadian manufacturing and processing profits which would be eligible for the 40 per cent and the 20 per cent corporate tax rate.
In case anyone thinks this is going to be easy to figure out and that one will, instead of applying the 50 per cent rate to corporate profits as has been the case hitherto-no matter whether these include active business profits, investment revenues or anything like that-apply the new rates, I say banish that thought from your mind immediately because a most complicated formula is applicable. If a manufacturer happens to be also the distributor of his goods, he can only claim the 40 per cent rate on those profits which are attributable to the manufacturing sector of his operation. For instance, if a furniture manufacturer has a shop where he turns out furniture which he retails in part in a building alongside the shop-all these activi-
Income Tax Act (No. 2)
ties being handled, of course, in the books of the company-the 40 per cent rate will only apply to the manufacturing and processing that is done in the one building. All the revenues that he makes from retail sales in the building alongside or perhaps in the shop at the front will be taxed at the 49 per cent rate.
If I am wrong, I hope the minister will correct me, but I do not think I am wrong. This may be all right for the large manufacturer who has a substantial accounting staff, but this applies as well to the small manufacturer whose rate is being reduced by about 5 per cent, to 20 per cent from 25 per cent. This will cost him more in additional accounting salaries, I suggest, than the tax saving. The minister shakes his head. I should like to know how the income of the small manufacturer who also engages in distributing and retailing is to be separated, or divided up, because this provision applies not to his total income but only to that portion relating to manufacturing and processing profits. There must be a clearcut distinction.
If I know the Department of National Revenue authorities, notwithstanding the perhaps more benign attitude of the Minister of Finance they will be right in there winnowing out everything that has nothing to do with manufacturing and processing and those profits will be taxed at the higher rate. I invite members of the committee to read this press release. When we come to the definition in block 3 of Canadian manufacturing and processing profits I will put on record the formula and the meanings of the terms with which we shall be dealing, and I shall ask anybody to tell me whether this is not going to be the most complicated part of a complicated act.
Having said that, I might say that the other day we voted to send this tyill to committee of the whole for examination and explanation. The nation is committed. Business has committed itself. However, we feel we are still right in that this provision should not become an integral part of our tax system, as proposed by the Minister of Finance, even though there is not one part of the Income Tax Act that cannot be changed. The present minister or any successor could say, as predecessors in that portfolio have said in the year following a change, "We have to make changes in the income tax system for this or that purpose." Therefore, I say there are better means of introducing cuts than those the government is seeking. However, this having been done, and since the minister has indicated that he is going to present an amendment, of which I think I have sufficient knowledge, which deals with the review procedures much more satisfactorily from the point of view of my party, we are prepared to accept this particular provision so far as it applies in Bill C-192.


Mr. Saltsman:: Mr. Chairman, I think at this point of the debate we should focus our attention on the question of equity and fairness and consider what is to be given to the corporate sector in the way of tax relief as against what is available to the private individual in Canada by way of tax relief. I do not think enough emphasis has been put on questioning the effectiveness and value of these proposals and the minister's own terms of reference. He suggests that this measure is going to stimulate manufacturing industry for the good of Canada and offset some of the

June 27, 1973
Income Tax Act (No. 2)
effects of the proposals of other countries on industries in Canada.
The present proposals, it seems to me, are as misguided as the proposals made by various Canadian governments throughout the years for bribing industry to be more productive and co-operative. Such proposals have almost invariably failed. Over the years, the Canadian tax system has been characterized as being one of the most favourable tax systems in the world to the corporate parts of our economy. The entire government case, if it has a case, rests on the argument that tax concessions to corporations will be effective and will benefit the Canadian people. The government does not argue that it is trying to be generous to corporations for the sake of generosity: it argues that this is good for the nation. Yet there is little evidence to show that favourable tax treatment of businesses and corporations has improved the Canadian economy.
Let us look at what has been done in the past and then examine the present proposal. For a long time Canada was the only country in the world without a capital gains tax. Despite our being excessively generous in that area, this country was sold out at a fast rate because the absence of the capital gains tax encouraged people to sell their businesses. They could make more money by selling a business and taking a capital gain than by running it. That is one example.
In an effort to stimulate Canadian ownership of industry we have had the dividend tax credit in one form or another for many years. During the entire period the dividend tax credit has been in effect it has cost countless millions of dollars to Canadian governments in the way of forgone revenue. Canadian industry was sold out at an increasing pace. It seemed the more we offered, the faster we were sold out. The attempted bribery just did not work.
We have a curious situation in what the minister is proposing at this time as it connects with the dividend tax credit. We have one government policy which is designed to encourage Canadian ownership, to encourage the takeover of foreign corporations: we offer them the equivalent of a 20 per cent deal on their taxable income in order to do that. Then we have the minister saying we are now going to reduce corporation taxes. The principal beneficiaries of this deduction will be the American corporations. They are the predominant ones in the manufacturing sector. We are doing that to offset the DISC program in the United States. The United States is giving up money on one hand to Canadian taxpayers, encouraging them to buy into American industry, and on the other hand making sure it cannot be done. American industry is being encouraged to expand because of tax concessions through a reduction in corporate tax. One policy is going to offset the other.
Takeovers and foreign control will increase. Even the legislation dealing with foreign takeovers will not really touch this kind of problem. Essentially, it is directed toward takeovers of new industries or, later, large industries not associated with those firms at that particular time. It does not do anything about expanding American industries in Canada. The minister is going to help those industries expand by giving them increased profits,

increased amounts of money with which they can enlarge their operations. It may be possible to justify one tax measure or another, but it is difficult to understand how you can have two contradictory tax measures working against each other.
Earlier today a question was asked regarding the monitoring of sales tax. What has the government done in terms of monitoring the sales tax? Have the savings of industry through a reduction in sales tax been passed on to the consumers? The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs says, "You really cannot expect us to have anything on this in only four months." He does not know when they are going to have something. This is a relatively simple thing to monitor. Monitoring the effects of the sales tax is relatively simple compared to monitoring the reduction in the corporation tax and all the avenues through which it leads.
The government says that in one year the Conservative party will have an opportunity to review this measure. By that time, they say, some information will be available. How in the world will they have information available on anything as complex as a reduction in corporate tax when they do not even have information available on the effects of reducing the sales tax, something which is relatively simple? I do not see any way in which that promise of the government will be kept. Even if the government wished to keep its promise, how could it with any degree of accuracy come back to this House in one year and tell us the effects of a reduction in corporation tax?
For many years the effects of accelerated depreciation have been argued. Different governments have brought in accelerated depreciation: this is not the first time. The effects were never understood. There was never really any evidence that accelerated depreciation accomplished the objective for which it was designed. On one occasion in this House when he was a backbencher, Mr. Benson, a former minister of finance, spoke in a very straightforward way about accelerated depreciation and what a gift this was to corporations. As minister of finance he exercised a great deal more restraint.
We are faced with the problem of assessing the matter. As we have not been able to assess it in the past, or perhaps we have not wanted to, I do not think we will be able to assess it in the future. Among the benefits we should expect from companies operating in Canada, whether foreign or domestic, are not only jobs but tax revenues. It is not good enough to say the concessions will provide jobs. If the concessions are large enough, obviously they will provide jobs. But at what cost? If the provision of jobs creates pollution, you do not get any tax revenue or people are taxed enormously at the personal level, some of the jobs have very marginal value. Jobs could certainly be provided at a very much lower rate if the government took over some of these enterprises.
The hon. member for Edmonton West referred to recaptured depreciation. He followed the government line. I was not sure whether he was in favour of or against it. He said deferred taxation was a free loan. At the very worst you can consider it a kind of loan to industry in order to expand productive facilities. If we are going to be in the business of giving out free loans-
June 27, 1973


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. member for York South said it is a loan; I did not say that.


Max Saltsman: I think it has many of those characteristics. Let us do it ourselves; let us get into the business. This particular parliament is in a great business. We take all the risks and they get all the benefits. We could have free loans. If a company does well, it might repay at some future date when the business is sold. If it does badly, we will just write it off. That seems like a good business for the government of Canada to be in. There does not seem to be much risk involved in doing that. If the government is prepared to do that in the private sector, we could do it much more advantageously in the public sector.
I want to deal with some of the arguments of the minister with regard to the reasons the House should consider passing this particular tax measure. I refer to his statements as recorded at page 4723 of Hansard for June 13. When you look at the minister's analysis of the Canadian economy, your immediate tendency is to agree with him. He says we are in real trouble. I agree. However, when it comes to offering solutions we find ourselves in a non sequitur environment. The solutions proposed by the minister seem to have little to do with the problem as he defined it. Certainly there are many alternatives, in the way of solutions, to what the minister has put before us. He is taking the easy way, handing out money. Like a drunken millionaire he is saying, "Here you are boys." There is money all over the place. Instead, he should be calmly looking at the situation and seeing whether in fact there is a better way of organizing our society and directing the energies of government toward improving the manufacturing sector. Referring to the Canadian economy, he said:
Over the past few years it has been adversely affected by the appreciation of the Canadian dollar in relation to United States currency-
How does a reduction in corporate income tax improve that situation? How does a reduction in corporate income tax improve the situation of our currency vis-a-vis that of other countries? What is causing the appreciation of our currency that is reflecting back as a disadvantage? There is one clear cause, and that is the government's policy of encouraging the export of Canadian raw materials. You cannot do both simultaneously: you cannot have a tax system which encourages the extractive industry to export raw materials at the same time as you are trying to encourage the manufacturing industry.
Let me give an illustration of how governments have gone on thinking they could have this dual kind of policy. There was a minister of industry, trade and commerce who made a speech outside this House at one time. He was reporting to one of the prestigious financial groups in Canada and preening himself on the government's performance. We have often seen this repeated by other ministers. He said something to this effect, "We have increased our exports by 18 percent." A large round of applause. The reaction was, that's wonderful; Canada has increased its export by 18 per cent.
He went on to talk about how well we were doing. Then he said, "However, I must point out that all is not totally
Income Tax Act (No. 2)
well." He said we had also increased our imports by 17 'A per cent. What did he expect? You cannot increase your exports without increasing your imports, any more than you can increase your imports over an appreciable period of time without exporting something.
What is really important in this whole equation is not how much you have increased your exports or whether your exports balance your imports, because that happens over a period of time, but what were the terms of trade. What were you selling to other people and what were you buying back from them? The point is, what we are selling to other people are irreplaceable raw materials, and what we are buying back from them are manufactured goods which in many cases we could have made ourselves and whose manufacture would in many cases have provided much more employment than was provided by what we exported. We have imported unemployment and we have exported employment. That has been the policy, and that kind of a policy is not going to be corrected by dropping the corporation tax down to zero, let alone down to 40 per cent.
Let us turn to the other problems which the minister brings to our attention. He talks about the recent enlargement of the European Common Market and says it has added to the competitive threat. What was his government and previous governments doing at the time we were selling twice as much to Great Britain as we were buying back from her? What happened when a prime minister of Canada announced that he was going to divert 15 per cent of our exports from the United States to Great Britain and that we were going to increase our trade with Europe? Nothing was done because we have been locked into a continental policy with the United States that has made us blind to the opportunities which exist elsewhere in the world, and because of foreign ownership, because decisions were being made by continental corporations which had little concern for what happened later to Canada and its relationship to European countries.
Now we are starting to cry that the Europeans do not want us. We are starting to cry that Britain has joined the Common Market. What choice did Britain have when she went to a Commonwealth country, Canada, and said, "Let's enlarge our trade as an alternative to joining Europe"? Canada was not listening and Canada was not helping. Now we say we are in trouble because that market is closed to us. Yes, we are in trouble. But how does the reduction in corporation tax really affect us? Will it make us more competitive so that we can jump over the hurdles just a little bit higher but not enough to really overcome the years of disastrous decision-making that went on in this country prior to that?
The minister goes on to make a third point. He says a further challenge is provided by the emergence of Japan as one of the new industrial giants. Is he really trying to fool us into believing that price is an important consideration to Japan? The Japanese have a totally controlled economy. They buy what they want and price is only one of the considerations, and a very minor consideration. They decide what goods they are going to manufacture, what interest rates they are going to encourage. They are buying from Canada. They are buying coal and selling it

June 27, 1973
Income Tax Act (No. 2)
back in the form of cars they have manufactured with its use.
This is not an argument against free trade. It is not an argument against enlarging our opportunities to trade with other countries in the world. It is simply an argument to point out the irrelevancy of the minister's proposal in the face of the problem facing Canada today, and the simple-minded solution that if you throw enough money around and give away enough tax, somehow or other this is bound to be to Canada's advantage.
If you turn the page of the minister's speech as reported in Hansard at page 4724, you will find he talks about one of the most critical elements of competition being the substantial tax subsidies for exports made available in the past year to U.S. corporations. He follows through on that in a further part of his speech as reported on page 4726. He says:
A contrary concern which has been expressed is that the benefit provided to subsidiaries in Canada of U.S. corporations could be reduced or negated by new tax measures proposed by the United States. At the moment this remains no more than a hypothetical possibility.
I guess he is trying to answer the question that if we respond to the DISC program in the United States, then some members or some people in the community have suggested the American will retaliate with runaway plant legislation. This answer is, "But we have that under consideration, we are thinking about it, and the conclusion we have come to is that it is hypothetical." Everything has been hypothetical. Britain joining the Common Market was hypothetical. United States retaliation with DISC was hypothetical. The fact that we could not build up our manufacturing industries because we encouraged raw material export was hypothetical.
Mr. Chairman, one thing is not hypothetical, and that is the American determination to export unemployment to Canada. Whatever measures the government takes in the tax system to offset measures taken by the United States in its tax system are going to be countered because the Americans are determined that they want the jobs in the States. They want to divert production from other parts of the world to their own country. I am not going to fault the Americans for having that objective, but I do fault the Canadian government for being myopic and thinking they can overcome very important American policy by a system of trying to outbribe the U.S.
In many ways we as Canadians may feel we have some advantages which the United States do not possess, that some of our attitudes in this country may be somewhat superior to those in the United States. But one thing we are not going to be able to do, and we should have no illusions about it, is outbribe the United States or convince ourselves we have more money that the United States. If the Americans have made it a matter of policy to shift production from other countries of the world to their own by using their tax system, we are not going to win that kind of war.
What do we do? I think there is a clear choice ahead for us. It is pointless to say we will wait for the Americans to do something and then see that our tax system offsets it: that if DISC represents a gain for corporations of seven or eight tax points, we will take off seven or eight tax points.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him in committee has expired. However, he may continue with the consent of the committee. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Max Saltsman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and through you I thank members of the committee. I appreciate this opportunity. As you can well understand, despite my usual brevity, when it comes to the tax system it becomes more difficult to be brief. But I shall try to conclude my remarks before much longer.
Getting back to the point I made as to whether we could outbribe the Americans, I do not think we can. It should be obvious it is not going to work unless, of course, the United States wants us to do that, and I do not think there is any indication of that. In my meetings with United States leaders and people who have influence in the United States, I found that what mainly concerns them is the provision of jobs. They feel they are losing their trading position in relation to the rest of the world, and they are determined to do something about it. They look at Canada and feel they have made some bad deals. They feel the Canada-United States auto agreement has been very much in our favour and there is a tendency to place some of the blame on this country.
I think this is a misguided attitude. If they reflect more carefully and examine the facts, they will see that we in Canada are not contributing to the cause of their unemployment and that any efforts directed toward punishing us or making it more difficult for us to sell to them will only work to the disadvantage of the United States.
The government has not responded with any positive measure. Presumably, if the DISC program is improved in the way of tax advantages, such as a decrease to 14 per cent, the minister will drop corporate taxes to 14 per cent. He has said he will use this means to counteract DISC. I should like to hear the minister say how low he is prepared to go with a corporate tax cut. Is he prepared to match every tax concession the United States makes, even though it may wreck our tax base, such as it is in Canada, and redistribute the tax burden in a very unfair way?
The United States has clearly shown us the only way in which you can deal with this attempt to entice industry or production from one country to another. I use the Michelin case as an example of what the United States has done. We feel that the advantages we have offered the Michelin company in Nova Scotia are fair, but there is some question about it. Certainly the United States does not take that position. It takes the position that we in Canada have bribed Michelin to come to Canada and produce in this country, under extremely favourable tax and tariff circumstances, for export to the United States. It considers this an unfair attitude on our part and has imposed what is equivalent to a dumping or import duty on Michelin tires going to the United States.
The duty itself is not that onerous; I think it is around 4 per cent. What really is important is that the United States has served notice on the Canadian government that if we persist in what it calls unfair tactics against its economy,
June 27, 1973

it is prepared to get tough. At no time has this government ever shown that it is prepared to get tough on the universal dumping program of the United States called DISC. This did not involve just one firm, it involves industry generally. Perhaps if we did not have the present level of foreign ownership in Canada, what the United States has done with the DISC program would not be terribly important. The point is, we do have an enormous level of foreign ownership, particularly in the manufacturing industry, and every time the United States makes a tax change of this kind, Canada has to shake a little bit and respond.
There is only one approach we should be taking. We should serve notice on the U.S. government that we have no intention of permitting it to export its unemployment into Canada which historically has had a higher level of unemployment than the United States. We must show clearly that if the United States brings in tax legislation directed toward this purpose, we will not respond with bribery but with positive government action, and that we will impose a countervailing duty equal to the advantage we think is being offered. If we were to do that we would clearly state where we stand, we would lay our cards on the table and indicate to the United States the risk it runs if it pursues a policy of exporting unemployment. The government has preferred not to go in that direction. It feels that is too tough a course to follow. Some day the government may have to follow this course, because it does not have enough money to bribe United States industry to behave and to provide employment in Canada; but for the moment the government is not prepared to do that.
Let me say a few things about the debate so far. This debate is not the end of the matter. It looks as though we will not be successful in our approach. My colleagues and I have reluctantly totalled the number of Tories and Liberals and have come to the conclusion that under the circumstances we will not be able to stop this measure. Let me say through you, Mr. Chairman, to those who may be taking some satisfaction from this situation that this is not the first time we have debated this question and it will not be the last time: the passage of this measure does not end the matter.
What has happened recently is that with the coining of a phrase, "corporate welfare bums", there has been a crystallization of the dissatisfaction existing in this country; there has been a focus directed toward this situation. Someone has referred to my leader's glittering rhetoric. I do not think this was the result of his glittering rhetoric, although he possesses great debating ability. I think it was his sense of honesty and justice that helped many people see these measures in a different light.
In this regard I should like to thank the hon. member for Northwest Territories who just bought himself a little aircraft to get around his riding. He was searching for a suitable name, and told me recently that he has found one. It is to be called "Bumair,"' northern division. He will be flying around his riding carrying the message of corporate welfare bums to the people.
Throughout this parliament my friends to the right in the Conservative Party have tried to make our lives a little miserable, to put it mildly. They have moved one phony motion after another. As someone once suggested, they have picked on everything except the Regina Mani-
Income Tax Act (No. 2)
festo in an attempt to get us to bring the government down on their kind of issue. We have fortunately resisted the temptation.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Max, your halo is getting so heavy your shoulders are bowing under the weight.


Max Saltsman: Before I sit down I should say that I believe the Conservative Party should be given the opportunity of demonstrating its determination to bring the government down and impale the NDP. We are impaled on this issue. Let the Conservative Party move an amendment that will defeat this bill, and we will support it and go for an election. We are quite prepared for an election.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Max Saltsman: Let us see how much you want an election and how anxious you are to find out where we stand on this issue. We shall move a motion a little later as we are not sure the Conservatives can be relied upon to bring this measure before the House a year from now. Obviously, the government does not trust us, hence its reference to 60 members. Unless there are a number of by-elections we will not be in the position in a year's time to demand a review. We intend to propose that the number be reduced to 25 members in order that we can force an examination and discussion in a year's time. In this way, such an examination will not depend on the Conservatives and we will take them out of that particular dilemma.
I appreciate the extra time I have been allowed, Mr. Chairman, and I do not intend to abuse the privilege. I want to make it very clear that my argument is not entirely against tax concessions under some circumstances, or that they do not have a useful role to play at certain times. I can imagine certain circumstances in which tax concessions in a selected way could have worthwhile results. Our argument, essentially, is that these tax measures will have no appreciable effect in stimulating employment in Canada. We believe they will do little more than bribe the United States into not taking their plants back to the United States, and that we could stop this in other ways. We feel this measure will cost the taxpayers an enormous amount of money, with very little benefit. Mr. Chairman, it is a disgrace that the only kind of policy the government can come up with is not a positive one of planning and analysis but one of bribery alone.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I have carefully listened to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat telling us that Bill C-192 enabling Canadian companies to enjoy a 9 per cent tax reduction will not create a single post or job in Canada and I entirely agree with him.
However, I do not share his views on the corporate welfare bums, because the New Democratic Party financed by international unions will demand salary increases for the employees. In short, my friends of the New Democratic Party are here thanks to the corporate welfare bums, whose unions are controlling employees but we will see, once the bill is passed, whether those members

June 27, 1973
Income Tax Act (No. 2)
will not suggest to the union people to ask for other salary increases.
That party is directly dependent of those companies and they blame them for producing more while they have not yet found a solution.
I will give you an example. I visited Czechoslovakia, which has a socialist goverment. I met their vice-president. The hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Cyr) was with me. We visited an automobile plant; we have such plants in Canada and we also import cars from the United States, but the Skoda factory, near Prague in Czechoslovakia, which employs 5,000 people, produces cars mainly for export. In Montreal the cars retail at $1,950, but in Czechoslovakia, where they are made and where corporate welfare bums have been done away with, where they have a socialist government which has nationalized everything- the Skoda factory included-the same car costs $2,750. I asked the vice-president why. He answered: we added a sales tax because we do not want our citizens to buy these cars. Why? Because we do not have any roads. If they bought cars, we would have to build roads. That's how things are in Czechoslovakia!
Another factory I visited that had been nationalized by the socialist government was the Bata Shoe factory which in 1934-not yesterday but forty years ago-produced enough shoes for three times the world's population, enough to shoe the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters). That was a private enterprise, a corporate welfare bum-


An hon. Member:: What do you think of those from Italy?


David Réal Caouette: They must come from Italy, there must be some socialism involved.
Mr. Chairman, today in Czechoslovakia all the big Bata shoe factories are closed. The government is not even able to keep them operating, having nationalized them, and the Bata Shoe company has set up business elsewhere, in the United States, in Canada. But in Czechoslovakia today, instead of producing enough shoes for three times the world's population they have to import shoes from Italy and other shoe-producing countries because they abolished the corporate welfare bums. That's progress for you!
Mr. Chairman-


An hon. Member:: A man has to work four or five years to get a car over there.


David Réal Caouette: Yes, four, five, six years to get a car, of course. You have to pay cash, there is no financing there. They say: We don't have any financing, that's true, but we certainly do a lot of walking.
Mr. Chairman, I do not understand; it is true that large corporations should be reduced in size, controlled, dominated. But what are they to be replaced by? Crown corporations which do worse, as in the socialist countries which do not have the standard of living we do? That would be one solution.
Please note that I am not saying that the 9 per cent tax reduction will solve the problem, that is not true. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) should have no illusions

about that, it will not solve the problem. Why? Because, as soon as the NDPs will see that the companies make a bit more money because they pay less tax, there will be a scramble for increases in salary. The companies, interested as they are in making profits, will not create that many more jobs. I doubt that there will be a single new job. It will not add to the purchasing power of the consumers, nor to the normal flow of Canadian production; we will therefore not achieve the purpose of the bill.
The bill is designed to help our companies compete better on world markets. We have a population of 20 million, and we produce. In the United States, with a population of 220 million people, the production is not the same as ours per capita. Obviously, they can produce for better prices than we can. And so, this will not solve the problem; we will still have to accept deficits if we want to export our production.
We blame the United States for dumping; any country with surpluses will resort to dumping. We are almost dumping our wheat; perhaps not this year, but we have done so in the past. When we were forced to compete against the United States to sell wheat to the USSR, we did not win; today, we sell our wheat to China; but what can we buy from China? We have to make exchanges, through the intermediary of other countries whose goods we can buy.
While in the USSR-the hon. member for Gaspe was there too-we visited a tractor factory. I saw tractors there, on the communes, similar to those we used in western Canada in 1928. Then these people want to export their tractors to this country. We are ready to import them, but when we ask: can you supply us with spare parts in case the tractor breaks down, they answer: No, we did not think of that. If they have no spare parts, we cannot buy their tractors.
But what can we sell them? All kinds of goods. We produce here. We have immense resources. It is not that Russia does not have any; it is because personal initiative has been abolished. You can see that everything is going to ruins. They have community farms where the farmer works not 80 or 90 hours a week, but 46 hours, the same as the labourer. How much is he paid? As the labourer; $55 a month, not a week, but a month! With such a salary, if he wants to buy a Skoda, it will take him exactly 15 years to pay it.


An hon. Member:: Even if it is raining, he has worked the required number of hours.


David Réal Caouette: Yes, if it is raining the 46 hours are completed; the farmer goes home and not back to the fields. If he is milking the cows and it is five o'clock, he leaves the cows and walks back home.
Is it this kind of system we want here? Our farmers, our industrialists, our workers are ready to produce as much as we want. A farmer gets up at four in the morning to milk the cows. I understand that some people get up at ten to "milk" the farmers but that is another story.
Farmers are working for hours but let us consider the situation of this industry in Canada. I think Canada is the
June 27, 1973

best per capita producer in the whole world but our people are working. Instead of encouraging them we want to tell them: Stop working! What is being done currently with the workers? They are told: Forty hours a week is too much. Working time should be reduced to 30 hours a week. Thirty hours will again increase prices and will make us still less competitive on the international markets. Our exports will suffer from it and we shall have to pay dearly for our imports.
It is true that we could manufacture in Canada, that we could use our raw materials and export manufactured products to the countries that need them. It is true that we should also take into account the fact that some other countries do not have raw materials and are prepared to produce manufactured goods. We are not to bring them to Canada and tell them: Come to Canada and produce here or finish the products to send them back home. That would not be helping them.
Yes, that still would not solve the problem. We aim at reducing corporate tax by 9 per cent on pretext of helping exports and development of our resources. Yet, at clause 2 of the proposed bill we read that the bill does not affect farming and fishing. Fishermen will go on paying the same taxes as they do now.
It does not concern logging either which is one of our primary Canadian industries. Logging will not benefit from that 9 per cent tax reduction while this industry gives jobs to thousands of persons. But as it is not going badly, this industry will not be encouraged to create jobs, develop or exploit our forest resources.
Construction is not affected by this bill either.
As for the extraction and processsing of minerals, subventions have had to be granted gold mines, because profits were not adequate. But they will not be allowed to benefit from that 9 per cent tax reduction which is granted other manufacturing and processing plants.
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that one should have taken into account industries which operate a little in our country, and encourage them to continue. But still I am not convinced it will create one single job. The only way to create jobs in Canada and to get the economy back on its feet is to increase the purchasing power of the consumers, without nationalization, without controls, as the New Democrats would like, without cutting anybody down, but by encouraging personal initiative and private enterprise. I am convinced that we can contribute, not only to the economic revival, but to the economic stability of our country.
Thus instead of drawing up plans with the help of the economists of the Minister of Finance, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) and all the political parties in the House, aimed at creating jobs, the matter that should be studied is the possibility of boosting the purchasing power of the consumers, who would buy products, and if products sell, that will create jobs in manufacturing other products to replace those that are sold. That would be called the retail price compensated discount.
Instead of spending all that money: 9 per cent to industry, 9 per cent to corporations, 9 per cent to corporate welfare bums, 9 per cent to the left, 9 per cent to the right,
Income Tax Act (No. 2)
10 per cent somewhere else, the government should pay 75 per cent of the salaries of extra workers hired during summer or winter. It should take all these amounts and distribute them in the form of a 20 per cent compensated discount, to all Canadian consumers, to all hon. members and to everyone in the public galleries, in short, to all citizens, after reaching an agreement with the retailers. Not price controls, no. An agreement with the retailers, which they could refuse or accept. And if it were agreed that price increases would be avoided, the government would agree to a 20 per cent discount to the consumers, compensated to retailers. If an item is worth $100, the consumer would pay $80; the government would pay the retailer the remaining $20 out of the funds that are now spent to exempt from taxes Peter, John and Jack at the expense of Paul and Harry.
Well, Mr. Chairman, this compensated discount has been discussed and explained in this House for several years and the government ignores us. They listen to us, they find it funny, they wonder how it would work out. At present, our economy is hobbling about, we do not really know how; but they are trying all kinds of things except that which would enable consumers to spur the Canadian economy, to support it, to interest manufacturing and processing industries in further development, in producing more.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest that we might thus increase not only national production but also national consumption. And the first objective we must aim at is to satisfy consumers. It is not much of a consolation for Canadians to know that wheat was sold to China, because this does not put bread on their table.
At this stage, I would like to quote a passage from the 1972 Annual Report of the Canadian Consumer Council:
"Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production;-
It is not export!
and the interest of the producer ought to-
-of the producer, the manufacturer, the manufacturing and processing industries.
-and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to, only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer. The maxim is so perfectly self-evident that it would be absurd to attempt to prove it.
That is so easy. Some people say: It is too complicated or it is too easy, it does not make any sense, it is too easy! Any one of us who went to primary or secondary school, to university, and learnt that whenever a problem comes up, it must be simplified as much as possible to find out the solution; otherwise, it will never be solved. We are going in the opposite direction.
Some legislation like the bill before us is being introduced. A haystack! We must find a needle here; instead of picking it up, we tell the Minister of Finance: Do it yourself! He looks at the needle and says: It is too easy, I will not pick it up. Let us put a haystack on top and let us look in the haystack to find the needle. It is more complicated, it is more intelligent. Such is the reasoning of the governments at this time.

June 27, 1973
Income Tax Act (No. 2)
I keep on quoting:
But in the mercantile system, the interest of the consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the producer;-
We think of the producer of wheat, of milk, of the fishermen, the producer of cherries. I almost suggested to put more cherries on the black automobiles one sees in the streets. What is black, has a cherry on top and two cucumbers inside: a police car! Let us put two cherries, that will increase consumption, production.
I keep on quoting:
-the interest of the consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the producer; and it seems to consider production, and not consumption, as the ultimate end and object of all industry and commerce."
Adam Smith said that and he was not a Creditist. He was a man who could see through the economy of any nation. The Wealth of Nations, what is that? It is consumption, it is the consumer. Therefore, if we as legislators pass legislation in order to help the consumer, of course, as a consequence, the latter will help the producer by buying his products and if the producer sells his products, I challenge anybody to prove that he cannot increase production today.
Mr. Chairman, all producers do not have production problems; they have distribution problems and the only way of distributing is to increase the purchasing power, to improve the consumer's purchasing power system. Everything must be tailored to consumption. We have been saying it and repeating it for a long time. It has not been understood yet. Some are thick-headed.
Mr. Chairman, these are the few remarks I wanted to make. Through this bill, the government believes it will create jobs. We will support it. Absolutely! Private enterprise must be helped to produce more. But, I think the government is not being consistent because there is no provision in the bill that will enable the distribution of goods that will be produced in large quantities.
Mr. Chairman, in voting for this bill, we will give our confidence to-


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. Perhaps I could ask for the unanimous consent of the House to allow the hon. member to continue because his time has expired.
[ English]
Is it agreed that the hon. member shall have a few more minutes?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Réal Caouette: I thank my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to proceed with my remarks.


An hon. Member:: Even the socialists!


David Réal Caouette: -even the socialists. They are nice at times, but I think that it is rather in their interest to allow me to go on, because this will enable them to understand something.

Seriously, Mr. Chairman, Bill C-192 may, after March 31, 1974, on request by 60 members, be revised or recalled. The tax reduction may disappear entirely if we find out that it does not give the results expected by this government and the Minister of Finance.
I suggest and I am quite sure that they will not have to wait long after March 31, 1974 before 60 members rise in this House and tell the government: Listen, unemployment is on the rise again, production is not selling. There is the problem, production does not sell.
I hear economists say that we must increase productivity. There is already too much of everything. Take any industry in Canada; there is too much wheat, too much milk, too much clothing, too many dresses for ladies, too much food, etc.
The only thing which is lacking is the purchasing power. They catch too much fish in the Maritimes and in British Columbia. At noon today, some NDP members were stating that there is too much wood, too much of everything. Mr. Chairman, have you ever heard of a worm inside a big apple dying because the apple is too big? Never.
And yet, in Canada, there are people in distress because we have too many goods; if there are unemployed people, it is because we have too much of everything. We are being told: Hire them, and we shall pay part of their salary. We have too much of everything, too many unemployed people, too much to eat, too much to wear.
Mr. Chairman, we have been playing long enough with that folly and several thousands of homes across Canada lack what is necessary. When our leaders will have had enough, when the government and the Minister of Finance will seriously study the problem instead of listening to old-fashioned economists, he will look at the future of Canada to put wealth at the service of all Canadians, not only of one group, but of all the citizens.
I did not outline the objective in 1931-this is 42 years ago-but Pius XI said in Quadragesimo Anno.
The economy-
-this is what we are talking about-
The economy will be sound and really reach its objective only when it will provide for each and everyone his share of the goods the nature of God and the industry of men* can supply.
Manufacturing and processing industry, with the nature of God who makes it possible for our land to produce and for our plants to operate . . . will provide for each and everyone his share of the goods nature and industry can supply. This share, he said, should be sufficient to ensure everybody at least honest affluence.
We will not become millionaires, we will not all be on an equal footing, but we must guarantee at least everybody honest affluence. That is the origin of our suggestion in our last election campaign program to give a guaranteed annual income to everybody regardless of his position.
Those who earn much more will pay much more taxes but up to a certain level. There should be a deduction of $5,000 for married people and of $500 for each child and a deduction of $2,500 for single persons.
Mr. Chairman, what is this policy of guaranteed annual income worth and who is going to pay for it? Our production can take care of that. I am convinced that there is no
June 27, 1973

production problem. Thought is given only to dollars that can enable us to exist, as is now the case in many sectors.
Now, Mr. Chairman, our suggestion is simple: let us pay out a guaranteed annual income and a compensated discount to the consumers; then we will see the economy prosper more than in any other country, even though some will rise in a while who will ask: Where has social credit been implemented? Nowhere. If it is so wonderful, why is it not implemented? Because people do not understand.
I shall give you an example to prove my point. Before being created, the caisses populaires did not inspire much confidence in people. I was one of the founding members of the one we have in Rouyn. People would come in, heads lowered-they were scared-to pay their $5 membership. People were even afraid of losing their $5 in those days. Today, the caisses populaires have become just about the most important trump card in the whole Quebec economy. In fact, they now have assets exceeding $2 billion. And how did they start? With a bunch of scaredy-cats, who later on became less scared. And even though my hon. friends in this House are timorous, they should try it out. It would not take long: they would lose some of their fear, and save Canada with me.


John Paul Harney: Mr. Chairman, talking about timorous people, one must understand that we all more or less dread speaking after the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette). In fact, it is very difficult to have enough talent to compare oneself to him, particularly when he chooses to quote encyclicals which date back to 1931. As for me, I must admit that I do not know to well the encyclicals of that period.


An hon. Member:: They are more of current interest than ever.


John Paul Harney: All I know about 1931 is that it was the year I was born. But I recall quite well a little more recent encyclical, written by John XXIII. I cannot quote it, but it said very frankly and directly that the economy is there to serve man, and that the modern states must realize that, to be better served by the economy, men, especially workers, needed and must form unions, and that everything should be done for the development of workers' unions. Consequently, if one wants to quote encyclicals on one side, others can do so as well. Maybe they have the same meaning, but then the one I referred to is more recent.
Obviously, I am speaking about the bill before us, but since the hon. member for Temiscamingue adressed a few words in our direction, I hope I will be allowed to answer him, perhaps not directly but at least in the same fashion.
He indicated that if the New Democratic Party had the choice, it would go and see the workers in plants to encourage them to ask for higher salaries. I quite agree with him. We shall do it willingly, because it must be admitted that in Canada incomes are unfairly distributed. As the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) said recently during the same debate on this very bill, only 20 per cent of our fellow citizens earn 50 per cent of the salaries, of the incomes. This means that in our cities,
Income Tax Act (No. 2)
people are suffering from hardships and certainly need to be encouraged to press increasingly for higher salaries.
I was rather surprised to hear the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) compare the socialists on this side of the House to the socialists in Czechoslovakia or Russia. There are certain differences. I am sure that if I made a rather easy comparison between the thinking of the member for Temiscamingue and that of Hjalmar Shacht, whom he used to admire, I could not associate the hon. member with the regime under which Mr. Shacht served.
But let us pass over those things. I would simply tell the hon. member that we should not worry too much about socialism. It is true that it was feared many years ago. I quite remember when I was living in Quebec that I received a monthly newsletter sent by the Southern Canada Power Company which no longer exists since it was nationalized by the province of Quebec. A regular feature was a cartoon of a little man made of electric plugs and wires and known in good French-Canadian as Reddy Kilowatt. Reddy Kilowatt had a store of little wisdoms. One month he told us: Socialism is the fifth column of communism I am pleased to see now that the propaganda of Reddy Kilowatt is not as widespread in Quebec as it used to be.
I would also like to say to the hon. member for Temiscamingue that we do not have to worry too much because today we are all more or less socialists, at least a little. Even Mr. Bennett, the former premier of British Columbia, nationalized electric power in 1961. He resorted to nationalization, he dabbled in socialism. That is the way it goes. That does not mean that I am accusing the hon. member and his colleagues of socialism, I will spare them for the time being. But generally speaking, it must be admitted that, in a modern Parliament, we cannot manage a modern economy without being socialist a little.
[ English]
But there are different kinds of socialists, even though I spare the hon. member for Temiscamingue from that accusation. I look around the House and see that they are all socialists more or less, in some degree. We have been accused of being creeping socialists, but really sometimes as I listen to the Conservatives I feel that they are socialists too. I detect that there is a difference between the parties in this chamber and that the members of the government party are a little more forthright. In this corner, Mr. Chairman, we have the marching socialists, clearly and simply.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Three cheers for our troops.


John Paul Harney: There is one thing which the hon. member for Temiscamingue said which I thought of some interest, and that had to do with the matter of exportation of our funds. I will come back to this point later. Members of my party who spoke before me have covered this ground almost totally; so effectively that there are only one or two points left for me to make.
The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville covered the social impact of this bill, informing the House adequately and fully, quoting sufficient statistics to indicate that the

June 27, 1973
Income Tax Act (No. 2)
bill comprised a retrogressive step; that rather than seeing to it that the burden of taxation is shared more equitably in this country, it would be shifted more heavily to the backs of ordinary taxpayers. He pointed out-and I think it is worth stating again-that there is really no point to this bill, at least not on the basis of the justification that corporations need the money, because particularly in the past year corporate profits have been out of sight. In the first three months of this year, Mr. Chairman, profits were 53 per cent higher than in the first three months of last year. He also indicated that it was the ordinary taxpayer who got hosing, whereas the corporations, as the years went by, paid less and less in taxes. He pointed out that this situation not only existed at the federal level but at the provincial level as well.
I might add this very simple fact to all the points he made. All the proposals already accepted by this House and put forward by the Minister of Finance to reduce the taxes of individual taxpayers in this country will be negated if this bill is passed, because the share of the burden carried by ordinary taxpayers will go up and the share carried by the corporate taxpayer will go down. I ask hon. members to refer to the supplementary information that the minister produced at the time of the budget for verification of the point I am making. Certainly, many good points were made by the leader of my party, the hon. member for York South, and again this afternoon by the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge. I will not repeat them but will simply add one or two considerations.
Our main argument against this bill is that it is socially unjust. But we can carry that argument to the very ground occupied by the Minister of Finance. He claims that the bill is designed to increase manufacturing activity in this country, and he says this even though we have no way of fitting this particular policy into an industrial strategy for the country because we do not know of an industrial strategy for this country. So how can anyone make a proper judgment and say, "Yes, it would be better for us all if you were to increase manufacturing activity in the country rather than the exploitation, processing, refining and fabricating of our resources or other kinds of economic activity"?
Let us face it, Mr. Chairman, manufacturing is not the only economic activity in which Canadians are involved. I will not go through the list, but I can say that many hon. members in this House represent areas in which there is very little manufacturing but an awful lot of economic activity. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar, for example, represents a riding in which there is an extremely important economic activity-farming. That is not manufacturing. So we must ask the Minister of Finance, into what industrial strategy is he fitting this particular policy which for its justification depends on the theory that we must increase manufacturing activity at all costs?
We are told that that policy somehow or other is tied in with the reduction of unemployment. Time and again, particularly during the past few years, we have seen examples of corporations, of manufacturing enterprises being handed capital on a platter and using it not to increase employment but to do the kind of thing that capital does. And what does capital want to do? It wants to

buy capital goods, machinery, and not increase jobs. All this bill will do is hand certain enterprises more capital. If I were the director of an enterprise and was told tomorrow, "You will have more capital to play around with," I would behave as the director of an enterprise has to behave, increase the productivity of my enterprise.
I would do this, of course, by increasing the enterprise's mechanization and automation. I would not seek to increase the labour content. After all, we must realize that the sayings of the Boy Scouts do not run this world. Although we would like it to be so, it is not. We must all act according to the function we are given. The board of directors of an enterprise want to see the growth of the enterprise and an increased profitability of the enterprise, and not the hiring of people. They are not concerned with the creation of well-being for the country, but with the growth of the enterprise and its profitability. So if we want to give them more capital, they will use it for the purpose of capital and not necessarily for the purpose of creating employment.
There is another aspect of this particular policy on which I wish to comment. The theory put forward by the Minister of Finance has a presupposition to it which is simply that the increase of manufacturing activity in this country is a good thing. That is the underlying presupposition which I have heard few hon. members of this House question, let alone challenge. Let me say this to the minister. Through this policy he is telling Canadians to try to beat the Americans at a game at which they are already being beaten by the Taiwanese, the Japanese, the West Germans, and so on. I suggest that it may be a totally false approach for this country to put the main impetus, the main thrust of its economic thinking into the development of manufacturing. That may be totally the wrong direction in which we should go.
What other ways are there? Of course, all of us have been told ever since we were at school, at various political meetings and by various politicians, that the wealth of this country is in the minds and hands of the people of this country and in our natural resources. Surely the latter is our trump card. We cannot have the arrogance to believe that we are somehow innately better than the Taiwanese, the Americans or the Fins. We should have the wit to realize that we are sitting on a very generous endowment, our natural resources. And in this competitive world, this is our trump card, a card which many other nations simply do not have.
Our industrial strategy should be concentrated on the resource sector, a resource sector which is owned and operated by Canadians, for Canadians. We should be developing not only the exploitation of our resources but their processing in Canadian hands. We should be concentrating on the refining of our resources and the fabricating to the nth degree of those resources which we hold in our hands.
I was fortunate enough this past winter to be sent as a delegate to the Interparliamentary Union conference which was held in a small country in Europe, Finland. Of course, I attended the conference assiduously but could not help learning a certain amount about Finland. It struck me, as I talked to the various parliamentarians in that country who entertain very opposite views on certain
June 27, 1973

specific issues to our own views, that there was a general understanding on their part of the industrial and economic strategy that Finland has to follow. It was understood. It was known.
It was certainly obvious that they had decided at some stage of their career that their well-being depended upon the resources controlled by them being refined by Finnish hands. For example, not a piece of wood leaves Finland unless it is processed and refined to the nth degree, either in the form of fine paper, fine furniture or high quality building lumber which they are able to export at competitive prices to Canada, of all places, for the Toronto construction industry. Those competitive prices are paid for products produced by an industry which pays good wages.
However, this kind of activity may not be the kind our people want or need. We may be heading in completely the wrong direction and trying, as we often do, to catch up to what the Americans were trying to do 25 years ago.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


John Paul Harney: I wonder if I may have another 38 seconds, Mr. Chairman?


Gérald Laniel: Only with unanimous consent. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gérald Laniel: I notice the hon. member asked for 38 seconds. I do not know if that is what he meant, but he is bound to that.


John Paul Harney: Mr. Chairman, I do not have a watch so it will be rather difficult to tell when my 38 seconds are up. I promised the committee a while ago I would refer briefly to a point made by the hon. member for Temiscamingue with regard to exports. He has a very good point. Another aspect of our industrial strategy which we should question very seriously is our single-minded devotion to the idea this country must export at all costs in order to survive and to thrive. I suggest very simply that that is a shibboleth, a doctrine which has been handed down to us without question from the days of the Montreal fur merchants. It was a good doctrine for them because they believed in it. They believed in it because it paid them very well.
I suggest very strongly that the best policy is one which concentrates on developing a strong internal economy. If you look at the nations of this world whose economies have a high quotient of exportation, you will often see the poorest nations of this world, whereas the nations of this world that have a rather low quotient of exportation as part of their economy are very often the wealthiest nations of this world. I see the Minister of Finance looking a bit surprised. He has never heard such heresy or, as he may call it, nonsense. Surely he will not believe that I am suggesting we should stop exporting. Obviously, we will want to export some of our surplus goods.


An hon. Member:: Wheat.
Income Tax Act (No. 2)


John Paul Harney: Particularly wheat in its most refined state, good rye whiskey. All I am suggesting, and I think it is rather important, is we should inspect these ancient mottos and beliefs, shift the concentration away and seek to produce a strong internal economy that will have as its prime and most important goal the satisfaction of the needs of the people of Canada.


Mr. Ritchie:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak briefly on this legislation. Treating corporations in a widely different manner because they are manufacturing or processing as opposed to farming, transportation and the service industries is a very bad departure. I have discussed this matter with a good many economists and people in the business world. Even those in favour of the principle of reducing the corporate tax on manufacturing and processing industries as a means of helping our exports point out that this is a radical departure from what has been accepted as the usual. My understanding is that in the past all corporations have been taxed the same, regardless of whether they were a service industry, manufacturer, or whatever.
This raises a very interesting and unusual point. I think it will be a headache to administer. It will probably require a whole host of regulations. It will be difficult to determine what is a manufacturing industry, a processing industry or merely a retailing industry. With regard to agriculture, it seems peculiar that small implement manufacturers will have a tax advantage, but not a company which handles grain. This is a departure from the established rules and practice.
Rather than a corporate tax reduction for only the manufacturing and processing industries, we might well consider our own type of DISC proposal. After all, this present cut is for those involved in the internal market as well as those who export.


Mr. Nystrom:: Will the hon. member entertain a question at this time? He is talking about the double standard. Is he advocating that the tax cut be extended to apply to not only manufacturing, but resource and service industries as well? I think that is the implication of what he is saying. I wonder whether I am clear on that point.


William Gordon Ritchie: In answer to that, Mr. Chairman, I believe in being fair: if we have it for one, we should have it across the board. The hon. member represents a constituency similar to my own. I am sure he appreciates there is nothing in this measure for our particular constituencies.


An hon. Member:: Vote against it.


William Gordon Ritchie: It should be across the board or not at all. I suggest a DISC proposal of our own would be very useful. The lower tax rate will apply to those already making substantial profits, but will give no help to those companies which may well be exporting but do not make enough profits to take advantage of this. The American proposal seems to have an advantage. It is directly related to the performance of the company in the export field, whereas this is more or less related to a segment of industry regardless of whether it exports.
There is another area to which not much thought has been given. I refer to the effect on the regionalism of

June 27, 1973
Income Tax Act (No. 2)
Canada. This will obviously have a much more beneficial impact on central Canada where most of the manufacturing is concentrated. It will not help western Canada or the Maritimes where exports are high but not of the category to fit into manufacturing or processing. For this reason, all the efforts of DREE will be counterproductive in this area. This legislation will not be beneficial in this peripheral area of the country. It will increase the disparity in favour of those areas of Canada that already benefit substantially from our economic system.
What about the ability of the manufacturing industry to carry its weight? The previous speaker raised some doubts about this and I am inclined to agree with him. Have we not made a fetish of expecting that everything we produce must be manufactured to the nth degree before it can be exported? The evidence shows that the manufacturing industry has found difficulty in maintaining jobs at a constant level. Jobs have certainly not been increasing. New job opportunities in the last few years have occurred largely in the service field; had this not been the case the rate of unemployment would have been much higher.
There are substantial disadvantages for Canada attached to carrying on a highly competitive manufacturing industry. Since the days of Sir John A. Macdonald a high tariff economy has been in operation-considered necessary in order to protect the manufacturing industry. So I question whether the impact of these tax cuts will achieve the desired results. In any case, it appears that those who are considering the manufacturing of new products are inclined to spend their money on labour-saving devices. This might be fine and necessary over a period of time but it will not provide the jobs we expect in the short run.
I should like, now, to make a point or two about the farming industry in western Canada. The world is short of food. We have passed through a period of abnormally low prices but it now seems likely that in the next two years we shall be able to sell all we want to sell, with the price of flax at $7 a bushel and rapeseed at $5 a bushel. These are unusual levels. It is interesting to note that the United States would have encountered an even more severe balance of payments problem had it not been able to sell its agricultural products on world markets. Last month the U.S. closed its balance of payments deficit with Japan largely because the price of soybeans and sorghum has almost doubled. This may only apply to one month's figures but it is an indication that food is expensive, and food accounts for a large part of United States exports.
I would point out, finally, that the legislation before us does nothing to benefit the western grain industry which is responsible for our biggest exports of food. That industry needs a great deal of renovation in the fields of handling and transportation particularly. Yet it will receive no help from the minister's proposal. This is another reason why it is not likely to be effective. Grain exports will total more than $2 billion this year, and probably more than that next year, all of this exported from the North American continent.
The legislation contains certain features whose effect is likely to be good, but it seems to me it would have been

much more logical, if reductions are to be given, to extend them across the board rather than to make them available to one particular segment of industry.


William George Knight: Mr. Chairman, we have been debating the question of the corporate tax cut since the budget of May 8, 1972. I believe that many of the most important points have already been stressed, as I am sure the minister will agree. I want to express my appreciation to a minister who will sit through all these lengthy debates on his bill. He has heard many of the arguments presented against, and for and halfway in between-as the hon. member for Dauphin just did-with respect to this legislation.
There is one area that, in the short time at my disposal, I wish to deal with this afternoon. How does this cut in taxes for the manufacturing and processing industry help certain areas of Canada? In the Speech from the Throne we heard about the intention to hold a conference, a western economic opportunities conference, in the city of Calgary where they are going to bring the four western premiers, the Prime Minister and all the hotshots together to discuss what they are going to do for western Canada. This conference is intended to bring about agreement on some kind of strategy, I assume, for the development of Canada as a whole.
We have seen in the last five years, in terms of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, in terms of the regional incentive development legislation, in terms of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, in terms of all the acts dealing with granting money and lending money, guaranteed loans, etc., that this money is concentrated in all areas but the west. The government, in the Speech from the Throne, intimated that it has supposedly some interest in reconstructing confederation, if you like, to meet some of the real problems which face western Canada. At the same time, it brings in a piece of legislation which would reduce the corporate income tax paid by the manufacturing and processing industry. What, in fact, it is doing is to give a larger rip-off to the corporations engaged in the manufacturing and processing industry, corporations which are concentrated in the southern Ontario region in the golden horseshoe which surrounds the city of Toronto.
How can a government say that one of its priorities is to bring about regional development while at the same time it brings in a corporate income tax cut for corporations which are in fact concentrated in the golden horseshoe in central Canada? Let us not be fooled. The majority of the half a billion dollars or more represented by this cut will in fact be going to one region of this country, not into the hands of the thousands of people who live in that area but into the select hands of corporations who will be able to do more or less as they like with that money.
Let me point out just how great the concentration of manufacturing is in the area surrounding the golden horseshoe in relation to the Regina district of Saskatchewan. We will do it in terms of manufacturing employment. Manufacturing employment has always been unequally distributed in Canada. In 1961, the central provinces of Ontario and Quebec with 63 per cent of the population had 81 per cent of the workers in the manufacturing industry, and things have not changed substantially since the time when over 400,000 manufacturing workers were employed
June 27, 1973

within 100 miles of Toronto and over 900,000 manufacturing jobs could be found within 400 miles of Toronto, an area which includes Montreal. This is quite a contrast to the situation in the Regina district which employs less than 10,000 manufacturing workers.
Such regional disparity has been at the root of a considerable amount of western alienation. So when a corporation income tax cut such as this is introduced, a tax cut which does not go to the workers in the manufacturing industry but, rather, goes into the hands of those in charge of certain corporations to do with as they please, with no stipulation that the benefit be used to carry out programs to increase employment, it amounts to another rip-off. This in fact is another rip-off when we consider the manner in which the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce handles these grants, and when we consider the freight rate structure to the advantage of the central region of Canada, the golden horseshoe, with very little advantage to the rest of Canada. This is the kind of thing from which western alienation grows. It is the kind of thing that westerners find unfair and unreasonable when carried out by the federal government.
What is even more annoying is the fact that a minority government sticks with its policy to reduce corporate income taxes. It could easily be stopped, but we find that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is in bed with the government in order to ensure that the eastern manufacturing industry in the golden horseshoe gets this corporate rip-off. Members of the Tory party are going along with the government in order to carry out that kind of measure.


An hon. Member:: Separatist.


William George Knight: An hon. member refers to me as a separatist. I consider that an outrageous remark because I believe in holding Canada together as a confederation and that one of the most essential ways of doing that is by answering some of the questions regarding western alienation, questions that should be answered at the western economic opportunities conference to be held in July. These questions cannot be answered by a government that moves in the direction of corporate income tax cuts as presented to us today. This puts an extra advantage in the hands of a privileged few in the central region of Canada surrounding Toronto known affectionately as the golden horseshoe.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order, please. I wonder if the hon. member would permit me to interrupt him. I understand that the President of the Privy Council rises on a point of order.


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, I will be most co-operative with the President of the Privy Council on the understanding that I may call it 5.45, or whatever I am supposed to do in order to ensure that I have the floor when the debate continues the next day.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The hon. member will be given most favourable recognition when the committee resumes its deliberation.
Redistribution


John Napier Turner: In response to an earlier request by the hon. member for Edmonton West, Mr. Chairman, I wish to table a document.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Perhaps we should hear from the President of the Privy Council on his point of order, and receive the document offered by the Minister of Finance when we are back in the House.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, it has been discussed and agreed that we might rise and report progress at this point in order that, with the Speaker in the chair, we might have an opportunity to commence consideration of the Quebec objections to the reports of the Electoral Boundaries Commission. Unless we commence consideration of that report today we might find ourselves in default of the law, and Your Honour knows the serious view the government would take of any such development.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) indicated earlier that a document would be tabled in response to a request of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table income tax regulations amending P.C. 1972/1611 of July 27, 1972.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Since agreement was made in the committee rather than in the House, perhaps I should ask if there is agreement that the House commence consideration of the objections to the proposed electoral districts of the province of Quebec, pursuant to section 20 or the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, being chapter E-2 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


REDISTRIBUTION
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On June 8, 1973, a notice of objection in the form of a motion was filed with Mr. Speaker in the following terms, namely:
Proposed electoral districts of the province of Quebec:
That, pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (chapter E-2, R.S.C., 1970), consideration be given by this House to the matter of an objection to the provisions of the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Quebec laid before this House by Mr. Speaker on Monday, May 14, 1973, on the grounds set forth hereafter:
(1)	The commission made no allowance for geographic and economic considerations, and ignored or neglected problems of communication within and between the proposed districts;
(2)	Except for Montreal, physical, social and economic cohesion is ignored in the proposed districts, thus destroying communities

June 27, 1973
Redistribution
of interest and making adequate representation practically impossible;
(3)	The geographic and demographic differences created by the proposed redistribution make the member's task even more difficult, especially in rural areas;
(4)	The commission failed to apply the provisions of the statute for a population differential of up to 25 per cent, depending on whether rural, semi-rural or urban districts are concerned;
(5)	The undersigned reserve the right to add any other reasons for objection which they may consider advisable and proper to be raised during the debate which they claim before this House, in particular the proposed names of certain districts.
Also, on June 12, 1973, a notice of objection in the form of a motion was filed with Mr. Speaker in the following terms, namely:
Proposed electoral district of Rosemont:
That, pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (chapter E-2, R.S.C., 1970), consideration to be given by this House to the matter of an objection to the provisions of the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Quebec laid before this House by Mr. Speaker on May 14, 1973, on the grounds set forth hereinafter: (1) It is suggested that the name be Lafontaine, or the riding of Lafontaine-Rosemont; (2) The name of Lafontaine is a name with historical significance which should not be allowed to disappear.
[ Transla tion]


Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-Iles de la Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, as a signer of the objection filed with the Chair on June 8, I think that it is my duty during the few minutes available to me to summarize my views on the report tabled by the Representation Commissioner.
In 1964, when Parliament passed the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, I think that Canada made great strides toward democracy. I was then a member of the House and voted for that bill. You may rest assured that I do not regret it and that my objections this afternoon are not at all to that effect, since in 1964 when another minority government introduced a bill we wanted to prevent politicians from tampering with electoral boundaries, because-I am told at least-that the members could cut out, according to their whims, a constituency made up of a majority of their supporters.
This is why in 1963 the minority government of the late Lester B. Pearson introduced that bill which was passed by the House. He succeeded where several of his predecessors had failed.
My objection is not necessarily directed against commissioners, but the point I want to make in the two or three minutes remining is the inflexibility shown by the commissioners in the administration of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. This rigidity is particularly shown in the fact that the commissioners seem to consider only the number of inhabitants in a region. Thus, for example, they absolutely do not think about social and economic circumstances in the areas that we represent.
If the findings of the report that was tabled by the Electoral Boundaries Commission of the province of Quebec were implemented, the region that I represent would be once again cut down by one member and, therefore, be deprived of a vote in the House of Commons.
At the time of the last redistribution of the electoral map in 1968, the lies de la Madeleine disappeared. I inher-

ited it and I am proud of it. As long as they want me, I am prepared to represent this population which is the most engaging after that of the mainland riding of Bonaven-ture. But I say that when the new redistribution was made, they forgot among other things that lies de la Madeleine have little or no relationships with the Bona-venture constituency or with the Gaspe Peninsula as a whole. The lies de la Madeleine lie in the Gulf of St. Lawrence 150 miles from the coasts of the Gaspe Peninsula. Trade never is done with the Maritimes but with the United States. Then, you can understand how disappointed they were in 1968, not to have the member for Bonaven-ture as a representative but to be left aside whereas since 1947, the lies de la Madeleine had been represented by a separate member.
Then, Mr. Speaker, since time is short and I want to give my colleagues the opportunity to express their views, I shall say that the number of inhabitants by district is given too much importance when reviewing the electoral map.
In a rural riding like mine, as in most other ridings in the province of Quebec, the member of parliament is more or less a social worker or an Unemployment Insurance Commission official. And more particularly this past year, he has been the official of the health and social affairs department in the province of Quebec in 99.9 per cent of the cases. He is the one who runs the errands, who helps out his constituents, who regard him as a worthy intermediary to whom they can go for help in solving their problems.
Just imagine, in a constituency like mine which is not the largest of the rural ridings, as Manicouagan is very much larger than mine but the mainland part of my riding is 180 miles long, it is sometimes difficult to drive 170 miles to go to the Magdalen Islands. If I have to go to the Magdalen Islands to meet my constituents, I have to leave from here, or if I am in Bonaventure riding, I have to go to Prince Edward Island which is hundreds of miles from where I live, or to Gaspe, to catch a plane that leaves when it pleases.
On the other hand a member for urban riding-I do not wish to minimize the role played by city members, for example Montreal or Toronto-finds it easier. On the contrary, it is to their credit, because they can effectively represent many more people than we can.
A member in the Montreal area needs only half an hour or maybe less to go over his riding so long as he does not call on each of his constituents. In my case, I could spent four days driving through my own riding and not visit a single home. Those are the difficulties of a member for a rural riding. The majority of hon. members represent very large rural ridings and I believe that if the commissioners apply the law too rigidly, we would have to amend it to allow the rural communities to be properly represented in the House of Commons.
I made representations to the Commission when it came to my riding; I could not personally attend its sittings but my colleague, the dedicated member for Matane (Mr. De Bane), whose riding will disappear if the Commission's report is accepted, presented my own submission to the commission members. We were told then: If you want this
June 27, 1973

to be done properly with regard to rural ridings, change the legislation because you are the legislators.
Well, this is my suggestion tonight: let us amend the legislation so that rural ridings may be more adequately represented.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I shall speak only two very short minutes, because I should hate to contribute to a first class burial of this very important motion.
As the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles de la Madeleine (Mr. Bechard) knows very well, I have signed the petition, together with my colleague the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette): we fully support this petition which has been prepared and which, in my opinion, goes beyond political partisanship.
We cannot speak for the country as a whole; we can only speak for what is of particular interest to us, that is the electoral map of the province of Quebec. We are losing two constituencies and our federal representation would be reduced. This is a good enough reason to close ranks and to protest strongly through this petition.
The second reason, as stated by the hon. member who spoke before me, is that, as other hon. members, I did submit petitions to the commissioners who do not seem to understand that, on an electoral map, respect must be had for regional units, on the cultural, sociological, and economic levels, or for any unit, any community which is used to living together.
Mr. Speaker, one cannot divide a town in two. That can, perhaps, be done in urban areas, but not in rural regions. It seems to me that the commission members would have been better advised to study the map of the province, but stand back from it a little, to try and innovate.
They should also have tried to put themselves in the members' place, instead of sitting in their ivory tower, amusing themselves by drawing a map of the province of Quebec and saying: "We've taken away two of your constituencies, because we thought you had so many people".
Mr. Speaker, in view of the conditions, I think that the commission members have understood neither the importance of the regional unit, nor the role of the member of Parliament who, in 1973, wants to have closer contacts with the people, because he is a public servant, because a member of Parliament is a man who has to serve the people, regardless of their political affiliations. The commission members should understand the importance of ensuring that constituencies truly meet modern needs.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to deal with another matter which specially concerns me, namely the constituency secretaries and offices. That should be studied well before the stupid electoral maps that are being proposed to us.


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, when one reads the debates in the House of Commons at the time the present Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act was passed, one realizes that the whole debate was on the difference that may exist between the number of electors in the different ridings.
Redistribu tion
As far as I can remember, the party in power, then under the leadership of the Right Hon. L. B. Pearson, suggested that this should not exceed 20 per cent more or less. And the official opposition was proposing, as far as I can remember, a maximum variation of 35 per cent more or less. Later-and I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) took part in that debate-the official opposition introduced an amendment in order that the variation be increased from 20 to 25 per cent. And that was unanimously agreed to by all parties.
If we look-and my comments are made with all due respect for the commission members-at the map that was drawn up, we notice that the whole debate that took place in the House on that variation of 25 per cent more or less was not taken into account. The constituency of Gaspe, for instance, will have a greater population than some Montreal constituencies.
The whole debate, in the House of Commons, was precisely on that question. And I point out that when the government introduced the bill, some constituencies had a population 10 times smaller than that of others. Then it was felt that with a variation of 25 per cent more or less an enormous step in the right direction was being taken.
Imagine my surprise and that of other hon. members to see for instance the map drawn up for the province of Quebec and to notice that in 99 per cent of the cases, the variation did not exceed 5 per cent more or less. In my humble opinion, Mr. Speaker, it is an interpretation which is completely different from that hon. members wanted to give to the legislation which was passed.
And only to mention one example of an absurd situation, let us take the constituency of Gaspe, which I know very well; according to the map, it would be about 300 miles long, that is to say from Ottawa to farther than Quebec City. Is it possible to imagine that the population could be well served by an hon. member who would have such a large constituency to represent? Those people are already disadvantaged from the point of view of government services and, as the member of Parliament is of capital importance in those areas, because he performs far more duties than urban members-the hon. member for Bonaventure-lles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard) mentioned them a while ago-I fail to see how a member, no matter who he is, will be able to represent adequately such highly populated ridings.
Finally, I believe we should think seriously of increasing the number of members in the House of Commons. Urbanization in Canada is growing extremely rapidly and I am afraid that, if it keeps up at that rate the number of seats in the Commons is not increased, the average population of each riding could well reach 200,000. Then, obviously, whole areas of the country will be represented by only one member.
That is why all hon. members will have to see to it that every citizen has equal say with his fellow-citizen from other areas, that equal representation is respected, while at the same time ensuring that geographical accidents and other factors are taken into consideration when a new map is drawn up.

June 27, 1973
Redistribution
That is why I strongly support my colleagues, the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles de la Madeleine (Mr. Be-chard) and the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), with a view to getting all hon. members to consider adopting a system that would safeguard both democracy and the rights of the citizen to be represented efficiently.
[ English]


The Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being 6 p.m., further consideration of the objections to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Quebec, 1973, now stands deferred.
At 6.05 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, June 28, 1973